ORDER : 01. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 08.06.2024 (for short, ‘impugned order’ ), passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Designated Special Court under NIA Act), Kupwara (for short, ‘trial court’ ) in a case titled ‘ UT of J&K vs. Sajad Ahmad Dar & Ors whereby the trial court, while observing that the offences attributed to the applicant/appellant fall under Chapters IV and VI of ULA (P) Act, rejected the application of the applicant/appellant, for release on bail. 02. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the trial court has committed error/mistake while passing the impugned order, without appreciating the medical report wherein the appellant, who is an innocent and is not linked with any terror organization, is suffering from deadly disease and his continuous detention would be fatal to his life at any point of time; that the trial court, while rejecting the bail application, has relied upon the statement given by one of the accused who has named the appellant in the present FIR which, as per the law laid down, cannot be read against another accused; that there is no incriminating material/arms etc recovered from the possession of the accused person; that taking into account that neither in the police report nor in the FIR, it has been mentioned that the appellant is the member of terrorist organization, which is referred in the first Schedule of the Act, the trial court could not have rejected the bail application of the appellant on that aspect; that Section 43(d) of ULA(P) Act has no application to the present case because the FIR has been registered under Section 13 of ULA (P) Act-1967, furthermore, the objections filed coupled with the contents of the FIR does not make out a case under Section 18 or 38 of the ULA (P) Act, as such, findings of the Trial Court that the bar of Section 43(d) operates is not correct, otherwise also Section 43 (d) of ULA (P) Act does not say that the bail cannot be granted except that if the case is covered under Chapter-IV, and in that eventuality, the Public Prosecutor is to be heard and only thereafter, the bail can be refused to the accused. 03. 03. It is also stated in the grounds that the continuous detention of the appellant would be fatal to his family because he is the only male earner of his family having old aged ailing parents; that the allegations leveled against the appellant do not make out any case under section 13 ULA(P) Act, as such, there was no reason for the police to record the alleged supplementary statement of the witnesses, which smacks of malafides on the part of the Investigating Officer, who is trying to implicate the appellant in a false case; that it was the legal obligation of the trial court to protect and preserve the liberty of the appellant, who has been illegally detained by the respondent police, as such, the impugned order is against the mandate of law. Lastly, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 be set aside and he be admitted to bail and ordered to be released from custody. 04. Pursuant to the notice, reply/objections to the appeal/interim application has been filed by the respondent, wherein, it is pleaded that the conclusion drawn by the said court has been only the conclusion required to be drawn in the matter in light of commission of offences committed by the accused persons including the appellant; that there is cogent evidence available viz-a-viz involvement of the accused persons including the appellant in the commission of crime directly; that the appellant is dangerous and threat for the sovereignty and integrity of the nation and if the appellant gets bail, he will create nuisance in the society and instigate the youths to join militancy; that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant would jump the concession of bail, if granted to him; that the appellant may hamper or tamper with the prosecution evidence and may induce threat, intimidate or influence any of the witnesses if granted bail to him; that the trial court has rejected/dismissed the bail application in full appreciation of law and procedure, governing the same by taking into consideration the gravity of offences and severity of punishment. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant be rejected. 05. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant be rejected. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the NIA Court, without going into the difficulties faced by the appellant in view of his suffering from heart ailment, had rejected the bail application and had also wrongly relied upon the statement made by a co-accused to implicate him in the commission of the offence though initially the appellant was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under section 13 of the ULA (P) Act but later based on the statement of the co-accused, the other offences were invoked, which attracted the rigour of Section 43-D(5) of ULA (P) Act and prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be admitted to bail and ordered to be released from custody. 06. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the appellant had sought bail on the sole ground of being medically indisposed stating that he was suffering from some heart ailment, however, due to the severity of punishment and the rigour of Section 43- D(5) of ULA (P) Act, the court below though rejected the application but had directed the respondents to take him to a Super-Specialty Hospital in Srinagar for his treatment and that the appellant was taken to the SKIMS Hospital where Angioplasty was conducted on him and the stenting, which was suggested by the doctors, was also performed later. They have further argued that the appellant had been working for the terrorist organizations for the last many years and was in a regular touch/contact with the terrorist handlers across border and had been serving as their OGW in transporting of arms/ammunition and money to sustain terrorism in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. 07. The investigation of the case had led into the chargesheet against the appellant that he had committed offences covered under Chapters IV and VI of the UAP Act for which there is a bar for grant of bail as contained under Section 43-D(5) of UAP Act, as such, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail in the case. 08. 08. From the detailed report filed before the Court by the respondents, the facts, which has emerged from the investigation of the case-FIR No. 295/2023 in which the appellant has been arrested, that on 27.11.2023, an information was received from the Incharge Police Post, Hatmulla at Police Station, Kupwara to the effect that the Rashtriya Rifles Camp Gushi lodged a report on a specific input received from 160 TA Bn regarding the exchange of weapon consignment near Gushi Bridge and further carriage towards Srinagar; that a joint MVCP was established by 15 RR and 160 TA Bn at around 1400 hrs, a vehicle bearing registration No. JK01AA-3370 (Tavera) driven by one Nazir Ahmad Dar was checked and found loaded with weapon consignment including one pistol, eight rounds of pistol and four Chinese grenades with Mst. Shameema Akhter @ Ranjit Kour and the matter was reported to the local police post; that after registration of the case vide aforesaid FIR, police reached on spot to conduct investigation and seized the arms/ammunition along with the vehicle and its documents on spot and also arrested Nazir Ahmed Dar and Mst. Shameema Akhter @ Ranjit Kour and the matter was reported to the local police post; that after registration of the case vide aforesaid FIR, police reached on spot to conduct investigation and seized the arms/ammunition along with the vehicle and its documents on spot and also arrested Nazir Ahmed Dar and Mst. Shameema Akhter, who during investigation, disclosed that they had been working with proscribed terrorist outfit HM as OGWs and had procured the said arms/ammunition from an unknown source on 27.11.2023 at Kupwara; that during the course of investigation, involvement of another accused, namely, Sajad Ahmad Dar (appellant herein) also surfaced on the basis of disclosures made by the other accused and he was arrested on 28.11.2023 from Chanpora, Srinagar; that during the course of investigation, the appellant, on being put to sustained questioning, disclosed that he had been working as OGW since 2011 and had also come in contact with one PAK based militant-Mushtaq Latram and that in the year 2017, he had visited Pakistan on passport via Wagha Border and after one month, he returned to valley; that during his visit to Pakistan, he stayed at Islamabad, Pakistan for a period of seven days with one POK based militant Altaf Ahmad Bhat; that in the year 2016, the appellant suffered mild heart attack and after recovery, he started his own business at Mithan Chanpora, Srinagar; that in the year 2019, he was detained under PSA for a period of six months and in the year 2022, he contacted one PAK based militant, namely, Mushtaq Zargar @ Latram, who in the month of November, 2023, informed him that he had sent some arms/ammunition from POK and advised him to collect the same from Dragmulla, which will be handed over by a person whose features will be intimated on phone; that on 24.11.2023 he motivated Mrs. Shameema and arranged a driver Nazir Ahmad Dar to collect arms/ammunition from Dragmulla, Kupwara, however the delivery of arms/ammunition was deferred on said date, however cash of Rs. Shameema and arranged a driver Nazir Ahmad Dar to collect arms/ammunition from Dragmulla, Kupwara, however the delivery of arms/ammunition was deferred on said date, however cash of Rs. 80,000/- was received through Shameema near old bridge Regipora; that later on 27.11.2023, a plan was again devised and accordingly Shameema along with Nazir Ahmad Dar were deputed to Kupwara where one Javid Ahmad handed over the consignment to them at Dragmulla, however, both of them were arrested on the same date near Gushi by Army; that during the course of investigation, it has been claimed that the mobile phones of the appellant were analysed, analysis memos were prepared besides some screen shots of objectionable material preserved, which clearly indicated that the appellant was in touch with PoK based terrorist handlers Mushtaq Latram and Altaf Ahmad Bhat on whatsapp and that after investigation, as per evidence collected, oral, documentary and circumstantial, prima facie offences punishable under sections 7/25 Arms Act, 120-B IPC, 13, 20, 23, 38, 39 UA(P) Act were made out against all the accused including the appellant. 09. Since the appellant after his arrest had moved an application on medical grounds only and in view of the directions of the NIA Court he was provided medicare at SKIMS, a premium health institute, and as per the Medical Board Certificate, the appellant had been found suffering from Coronary Artery disease and uncontrolled Hypertension; that Angioplasty had been conducted in one coronary artery and needs stenting in two other arteries and that in addition, the patient (appellant herein) had history of sudden cardiac death in family. The appellant has been given sufficient medical care in custody and taken to the SKIMS Hospital for Angioplasty and Stenting. Thereafter, there seems to be no serious threat to his life, which may not be considered by the NIA Court. 10. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of the co-accused cannot be read into evidence against the accused is an aspect, which cannot be gone into while considering the grant of bail. Thereafter, there seems to be no serious threat to his life, which may not be considered by the NIA Court. 10. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of the co-accused cannot be read into evidence against the accused is an aspect, which cannot be gone into while considering the grant of bail. The other contention that the offences covered under Chapters IV and VI of the UAP Act, are not made out against the appellant are also not to be considered at the time of consideration of bail, as such, intricate questions cannot be gone into by the Court at this stage since the chargesheet is also stated to have been laid and by now, the charges would have been considered and the aforesaid points raised would have been addressed by the NIA Court while framing the charge and if the NIA Court had not considered those pleas, the legal remedy is available with the appellant to assail the order framing charge. 11. Viewed thus, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the court below, which may warrant any interference by this Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The impugned order is upheld, as a result the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the appellant in case of any eventuality about his health shall be at liberty to lay a fresh motion seeking bail, before the Trial Court, who shall consider the matter at its own merit, without being influenced by any of our observations made while passing judgment in this appeal on hand. 12. The Appeal, along with connected application(s), is thus disposed of as dismissed.