JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J . 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 291 of 2025 arising out of Special NIA Case No. 03 of 2022, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellants in connection with R.C. Case No. 02/2022/NIA/RNC arising out of Lohardaga Peshrar P.S. Case No.5 of 2022 registered under Sections 14 7 , 148, 149, 307, 353 and 414 of IPC; under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the ARMS ACT ; under Section 10 , 13, 14, 15 and 18 of UA(P) Act; under Section 3 /4/5 of Explosive Substances Act and under Section 17 of CLA ACT , has been rejected. Submission of the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner: 2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has not appreciated the fact in right perspective as the appellant is not named in the FIR and has been made accused in the present case only on the basis of 2 nd supplementary charge-sheet filed by the NIA. 3. It has also been submitted that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant and is having no concern with any extremist organization and even the appellant is having no criminal antecedent. 4. It has been contended that the charges have already been framed against the appellant vide order dated 19.02.2025 and till date, none of the witnesses has been examined and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 10.04.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that it is a fit case where the privilege of bail is to be granted in favour of the appellant so that the appellant be released from judicial custody. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent NIA: 6. While, on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the appellant is a member of CPI Maoists Organization (a banned Organization) and during search, lots of documents, i.e., pocket diary note book, letter pad, moist books were seized. While, on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the appellant is a member of CPI Maoists Organization (a banned Organization) and during search, lots of documents, i.e., pocket diary note book, letter pad, moist books were seized. Details about the collection of levy/extortion money is also mentioned in a diary and diary also mentions about the details of arms and ammunitions. 7. It has also been submitted that one of the accused Raju Kumar @ Raju Sahu, along with associates used to provide shelter to absconding accused Ravinder Ganjhu, at various brick kiln located at forest area of district Lohardaga and Latehar. Further, Raju Kumar @ Raju Sahu with the help of brick kiln munshi/staff namely, Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan, the present appellant, provided shelter, food and other logistic support to the absconding accused Ravinder Ganjhu, Regional committee member of CPI (Moist) and even during search at 14 locations, arms and ammunitions, incriminating materials and digital devices were seized. One country made pistol, one magazine and 06 live rounds were seized from the room of appellant/accused Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan at brick kiln at Sarnatoli, Lohardaga. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the prayer for bail of the present appellant has already been dealt with, on merit, by this Court vide order 06.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2144 of 2023 wherein the said prayer has been rejected. The appellant, against the said order, preferred SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10580/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also rejected the said SLP granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh application for bail in the event of trial not being proceeded with. 9. Learned counsel for the NIA has submitted, at bar, that since the trial is in progress and altogether 05 witnesses have already been examined and the trial will be concluded soon, as such, the present appeal is fit to be rejected by declining to interfere with the order impugned herein and also on the ground that no fresh ground has been agitated on behalf of the appellant. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the NIA, therefore, has submitted on the aforesaid premise that the impugned order requires no interference. Analysis: 11. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the NIA, therefore, has submitted on the aforesaid premise that the impugned order requires no interference. Analysis: 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. This Court thinks it fit and proper to refer the background of the case herein which led to filing of the instant appeal. 13. The present appellant had earlier preferred one Criminal Appeal (DB) No.2144 of 2023 against the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2186 of 2023 arising out of Special NIA Case No. 03 of 2022, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, in connection with R.C. Case No. 02/2022/NIA/RNC arising out of Lohardaga Peshrar P.S. Case No.5 of 2022, has been rejected. 14. This Court, after taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant as also on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-NIA, had rejected the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant, on merit, vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2144 of 2023. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said order is being referred as under: “ 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a very recent judgment rendered in Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 while taking in to consideration of the judgment as rendered in the National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) has observed that, the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 43D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail and lays down that if the Court, ‘on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure’, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. In the aforesaid context it has further been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task on hand and in dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject bail and the ‘justifications’ must be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted before the Special Court. 29. In the aforesaid background the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the test for rejection of bail is quite plain and Bail must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It has further been observed that it is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied - that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence).---- --------- 30. In this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position is made clear by Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. 32. This position is made clear by Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. 32. This Court, on the basis of the abovementioned position of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered against the appellant is proceeding to examine as to whether the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true as compared to the opinion of accused not guilty by taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation. 33. This Court had directed the learned counsel for the N.I.A. to file counter affidavit, as would appear from the order dated 11.01.2024 and in pursuance thereto, the counter affidavit has been filed. 34. It is evident from the counter affidavit based upon the material collected in course of investigation as in the charge-sheet that one of the accused Raju Kumar @ Raju Sahu, along with associates used to provide shelter to absconding accused Ravinder Ganjhu, at various Brick kiln located at forest area of district Lohardaga and Latehar. Further, Raju Kumar @ Raju Sahu with the help of brick kiln munshi/staff namely, Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan, the present appellant, provided shelter, food and other logistic support to the absconding accused Ravinder Ganjhu, Regional committee member of CPI (Moist). Further, on search lots of documents, i.e., pocket diary note book, letter pad, moist books were seized. Details about the collection of levy/extortion money is also mentioned in a diary and diary also mentions about the details of arms and ammunitions and incriminating materials and digital devices were also seized. One country made pistol, one magazine and 06 live rounds were seized from the room of appellant/accused Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan at brick kiln at Sarnatoli, Lohardaga. Thereafter, the present appellant, Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan on examination and due to his suspected role, was arrested on 09.04.2023. 35. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the present appellant/accused used to work as a brick kiln munshi of Raju Kumar g Raju Sahu (A-27) who is a close associate of CPI Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-20). It has come in investigation that the present appellant has met Ravinder Ganjhu(A-20), along with Raju Kumar (A- 29), in the Bulbul Forest area of Lohardaga District. It has come in investigation that the present appellant has met Ravinder Ganjhu(A-20), along with Raju Kumar (A- 29), in the Bulbul Forest area of Lohardaga District. During visit, appellant Saw the 20-25 people wearing black uniforms and carrying big weapons/rifles. 36. It has further revealed that CPI Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-20) used to visit Raju Kumar's brick kiln with his armed squad and as per the direction of Raju Kumar (A-29), appellant/accused Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan (A-17) delivered some necessary goods to the said Ravindra Ganjhu (A- 20) on several occasion. 37. Further, it has surfaced that appellant/accused Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan (A 17) had met some of the CPI Maoists namely Govind Birjia (A-16), Balak Ganjhu (A-10) Muneshwar Ganjhu (A- 15), Jatru Kherwar (A-14) and others. He (A-17) and in January 2022, Raju Kumar (A-29) took the appellant along with him to the Bulbul Forest area where an armed squad member of Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-20) was already present. During that occasion, Raju Kumar (A-29) handed over a can and wire to Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-20), which Raju Kumar (A-29) had purchased and which was to be later used for assembling explosives. 38. In course of investigation, it has been revealed that, on 08.04.2023, has appellant/accused Sajan Bhuiyan (A-17) was at SarnaTolil, Ita Bhatta (brick kiln) and on that particular day, Ravindra Ganjhu (A-20) arrived at that place and spent night there. On the next day (09.04.2023), the place was searched by NIA but before the raid, the Maoists Ravindra Ganjhu (A-20), and Raju Kumar (A-29), fled from that place. The place was searched and appellant/accused Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan (A-17) was interrogated by the NIA officer. During the search, one pistol and six bullets were recovered from his room and subsequently he (A-17) was arrested. 40. Therefore, as per aforesaid paragraph prima facie it appears that present appellant A-17 conspired with co- accused A-29, with an intention to provide support to the armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) a proscribed terrorist organization/prime accused of the instant case who were involved in wagging war against Government of India. 41. Further A-17 with co-accused A-29 voluntarily harboured/concealed Ravinder Ganjhu(A-20) and other armed cadres of CPI(Maoist) knowing that they are members of a banned terrorist organization. As such prima facie it appears that accusation against present appellant is not untrue. 42. 41. Further A-17 with co-accused A-29 voluntarily harboured/concealed Ravinder Ganjhu(A-20) and other armed cadres of CPI(Maoist) knowing that they are members of a banned terrorist organization. As such prima facie it appears that accusation against present appellant is not untrue. 42. The facts disclosed in the charge-sheets were duly corroborated during course of investigation by way of statement of witnesses and thereby, prima facie the allegation as made against the accused/petitioner appears to be true. 43. Thus, from perusal of the various annexures and paragraphs of the charge sheet, prima facie appears that the appellant has associated himself with terrorist organization CPI (Moist) knowingly and aided the said organization voluntarily and further he has provided logistics support to terrorist organization CPI (Moist). 44. Thus, it is evident that the appellant connected with CPI Mandet and actively aiding to the banned organization. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in the case of Arup Bhuyan Vrs. State of Assam & Anr., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 745 that being a member of the banned organization is also an offence under the UA(P) Act. 45. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground of custody and has also taken the aid of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra). 46. It has been contended by taking aid of the aforesaid judgment that taking into consideration the period of custody, and probable delay in trial, it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to be released from judicial custody. 47. While, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent N.I.A. has seriously disputed the aforesaid fact apart from the merit that against the present appellant, it has come in the charge- sheet about the his involvement is direct in commission of offence having closed associates of people of the CPI (Maoist). 52. This Court, after considering the aforesaid fact as referred hereinabove and based upon the investigation made against the appellant, wherefrom, it is evident that he is the active nexus with the Naxal outfit, having given aid to Maoist people in their activities, therefore, is of the view that the case of the appellant is not fit to be considered for his release from judicial custody. 53. 53. Further, in the instant case the appellant is the active member of the banned organization and he has got direct involvement in the activities of the banned organization as per the discussion made hereinabove. Summation: 54. This Court, considering the aforesaid distinguishing facts in the present case by taking into consideration the active involvement of the appellant in the extremist activities being direct associate of the banned organization, is of the view that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra) is not fit to be applied. 55. Accordingly, this Court, on the basis of the facts as referred hereinabove and coming to the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 as also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) is of the view that it cannot be said that the allegation levelled against the appellant is prima facie untrue. 56. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.2186 of 2023 by AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi, rejecting the bail application of the appellant and as such, the order impugned requires no interference by this Court. 57. In the result, we find no merit in instant appeal, hence, the same is accordingly, dismissed. 58. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. 59. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant appeal.” 15. The appellant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2144 of 2023, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing appeal being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10580 of 2024. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.11.2024 declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2144 of 2023, however, liberty had been granted to the appellant to file a fresh application for bail in the event of the trial not being proceeded with. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.11.2024 declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2144 of 2023, however, liberty had been granted to the appellant to file a fresh application for bail in the event of the trial not being proceeded with. For ready reference, the order dated 05.11.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10580 of 2024 is being referred as under: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. However, in the event of the trial not being proceeded with, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh application for bail, in which case, the impugned order will not stand in the way. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 17. The appellant, thereafter, approached the learned trial court by preferring fresh miscellaneous criminal application being Misc. Criminal Application No.291 of 2025 arising out of Special NIA Case No. 03 of 2022 [RC Case No. 02/2022/NIA/RNC]. 18. The learned trial court in the said order has taken into consideration that the present appellant had earlier filed Misc. Criminal Application No.2186 of 2023 which had been rejected against which the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court which had also got rejected and thereafter, SLP was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which also got rejected. 19. The learned trial court has observed in the order impugned herein that a prima facie case is being made out against the appellant on the basis of evidence collected by the NIA during investigation. It has also been observed that the appellant along with Raju Kumar Sahu provided all logistic support and hide out to Regional Committee Member Ravindra Ganjhu who is genuine threat to the internal security of the country. 20. The learned trial court, in view of the aforesaid observation, has rejected the said application vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 291 of 2025 against which the present appeal has been preferred for grant of regular bail. 21. 20. The learned trial court, in view of the aforesaid observation, has rejected the said application vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 291 of 2025 against which the present appeal has been preferred for grant of regular bail. 21. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspect it is evident that earlier this Court has already considered the prayer for bail of the petitioner, on merit, vide order dated 06.02.2024 and the said order has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner has given liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for bail in the event of the trial not being proceeded with. 22. Herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has submitted at Bar that the trial in the instant case is in progress and charges have already been framed against the present appellant and further, 05 witnesses have already been examined and the trial of the case will be concluded shortly. 23. In the light of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the NIA this Court is of the view that since in the instant case trial is in progress, therefore, the liberty as granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court is now not available to the appellant. Further this Court has already expressed its view on the merit of earlier appeal which has been filed by the appellant with prayer for bail and since no fresh ground is available for the appellant, therefore it is considered view of this Court that it is not required for this Court to reiterate its view on merit. 24. So far, the long incarceration of the petitioner is concerned it is relevant to state that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 , in the matter of UAP Act 1967 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: “46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organization involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. 25. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that mere delay in trial and custody of few months (9 months herein) pertaining to grave offences, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. 26. Thus, this Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and further taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-NIA that the trial has proceeded as also that 05 witnesses have already been examined and the trial will be concluded soon and the same having not been opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of the view that the order impugned dated 18.03.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 291 of 2025 requires no interference. 27. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 28. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.