JUDGMENT : K. V. Jayakumar, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008. 2. The present appeal is preferred by accused No. 39, challenging the order passed by the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, in Crl.M.P. No. 318 of 2024 in S.C. No. 02 of 2023/NIA dated 31.08.2024. 3. In the above case, the appellant stands indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w. Section 149 IPC r/w. 302 IPC, Section 3 (a),(b),(d) r/w Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act , 1988 , Sections 13 , 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 and 29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 [for the sake of brevity, ‘UA(P) Act] and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act , 1959. 4. Brief facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as follows: 4.1. The Central Government received credible and actionable intelligence indicating that the office bearers, members, and cadres of the Popular Front of India (PFI)—a registered society—and its affiliated organisations in Kerala had conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise their cadres to commit terrorist acts in the State of Kerala and other parts of the country. 4.2 The intelligence revealed that PFI members and office bearers based in Kerala, many of whom had earlier association with the proscribed terrorist organisation SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), maintained operational linkages with other internationally proscribed terrorist organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)/Daesh and Al-Qaeida. Some members of the PFI cadres were also members of these banned terrorist groups. 4.3 It was revealed that the PFI had allegedly created an organised network with the objective of recruiting vulnerable Muslim youth into proscribed international terrorist organisations to facilitate the commission of terrorist acts. Moreover, PFI and its members were reportedly engaged in activities prejudicial to public order and harmony by inciting hatred between different religious communities through incendiary speeches, publications, articles, and social media posts. Moreover, PFI and its members were reportedly engaged in activities prejudicial to public order and harmony by inciting hatred between different religious communities through incendiary speeches, publications, articles, and social media posts. Their actions were aimed at disrupting public tranquillity, and evidence pointed to organised movements intending to train participants in the use of criminal force against individuals of other religions or groups and thereby instilling fear, terror, and a sense of insecurity among members of other communities. 4.4 The PFI and its members were allegedly responsible for several violent incidents and murders in Kerala, which created a sense of terror in the minds of the general public. Additionally, it is alleged that PFI, its office bearers, and its members were indulging in unlawful activities with the intent to foment disaffection against the Indian State by provoking individuals, especially innocent members of the Muslim community, to defy the Government and institutions established by law and thereby undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India. 4.5 Based on the above facts and the gravity of the allegations, the Central Government formed the opinion that the activities of the Popular Front of India attracted offences punishable under Sections 120B and 153A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and Sections 13 , 18, 18B, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967, which are scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008. 4.6. Being satisfied that the above acts had serious ramifications for national security, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CTCR Division, vide Order No. 11011/82/2022-NIA dated 16.09.2022, directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take up the investigation. In compliance with the said direction, a case was registered as RC-02/2022/NIA/KOC at the NIA Police Station, Kochi, on 19.09.2022 under the aforementioned provisions, and the First Information Report (FIR) was submitted before the jurisdictional Court. 4.7. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Crime No. 318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which involved the murder of one Sreenivasan, a BJP activist, was a connected offence under Section 8 of the NIA Act. 4.7. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Crime No. 318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which involved the murder of one Sreenivasan, a BJP activist, was a connected offence under Section 8 of the NIA Act. In the said case, the Kerala Police had laid a final report arraying 44 persons as the accused and charged them for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 34, 118, 119, 109, 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 341, 201, 212, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act , 1988. The case records in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Police Station were transferred to the Special Court. 4.8 Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order No. 11011/82/2022/NIA dated 19.12.2022 directed the NIA to investigate FIR No. 318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, Kerala, under the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008. 4.9. It is alleged that the PFI has frontal organisations like Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women’s Front (NWF), Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, in addition to their political wing, Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). 4.10. On 28.09.2022, the Government of India declared the Popular Front of India and its affiliates/frontal organisations as an “Unlawful Association” under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967. 4.11. The prosecution alleges that the 1st accused, Popular Front of India, its office bearers, leaders and members besides their affiliates, hatched a conspiracy during the past few years inside and outside Kerala, with their agenda to overthrow the democracy in India and to implement Islamic Rule in India by 2047, for which they prepared structured stages of progression. In pursuance to their plans, they carried out various activities including uniting Muslims under the flag of PFI, forming alliances with certain groups, stockpiling weapons and explosives, etc. They also intended to eliminate those who acted against the interest of PFI and recruit enough trained cadres and stockpile arms to declare a new Constitution based on Islamic Principles. 4.12. In pursuance to their larger conspiracy, PFI had established 3 Wings - ‘Reporters Wing’, ‘Physical and Arms Training Wing/PE Wing’ and ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’. They also intended to eliminate those who acted against the interest of PFI and recruit enough trained cadres and stockpile arms to declare a new Constitution based on Islamic Principles. 4.12. In pursuance to their larger conspiracy, PFI had established 3 Wings - ‘Reporters Wing’, ‘Physical and Arms Training Wing/PE Wing’ and ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’. Through their ‘Reporters Wing’ which is a quasi-intelligence division of the PFI, it collected private and personal information of prominent personalities in society, and leaders of other communities, especially the Hindu Community, including their day-to-day activities. The data is compiled at the PFI district level and communicated to their State hierarchy. The details are regularly updated and utilised to “Target” the individuals as and when required by the terrorist gang. The PFI had trained its cadres for the collection of such data and had stored them, and provided the same to their assault teams in ‘Service Wing’ for attack as and when decided by their leadership. 4.13. In further pursuance to their agenda, the PFI, through their Arms Training Wing, prepared master trainers to impart uniform physical and arms training under a common syllabus with a set course to their cadres in various stages under the guise of yoga training programs, rescue and relief activities, martial arts, and other physical development activities. The PFI devised the program to filter the cadres through various stages and gave arms and explosives training to selected cadres through these stages. PFI used its multiple facilities and affiliated institutions, including the institutions run in the name of ‘Trusts’, besides other places, to conduct such training camps and secret meetings. The PFI used these trained cadres to eliminate shortlisted targets based on the decisions of their leadership as and when required. The PFI also used such selected cadres as executioners of the decisions of their pseudo-court –”Darul Qaza” 4.14. The PFI, its office bearers, and cadres had conspired to commit the terrorist act by killing any targeted person of another religion/section of the society to create terror in the minds of other communities and the public at large. In furtherance to that, PFI leaders and cadres carried out intensive recce on members of other religions, particularly the Hindu community and compiled the same for targeting through their ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’. 4.15. In furtherance to that, PFI leaders and cadres carried out intensive recce on members of other religions, particularly the Hindu community and compiled the same for targeting through their ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’. 4.15. In murder cases involving PFI cadres, including the one in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, none of the accused had any personal enmity with the deceased. The victims have been selected solely because of their leadership/membership in a particular community and were killed to create terror in society. Several persons were recced to become possible targets. The PFI, through such acts, intended to disturb harmony among the society and to terrorise people within the society with a view to creating a sense of fear and insecurity in their minds. The PFI also intended to instill confidence among its cadres by executing such acts. The plans so made were executed to prevent any defiance of their command in the future. 4.16. In one such specific incident in pursuance to their larger conspiracy, leaders and accused persons being members of Popular Front of India (PFI) conducted conspiracy at various places in Palakkad on 15th and 16th of April 2022, conducted reconnaissance of residences belonging to several leaders from Hindu community who appear in their target-list and chose and decided to eliminate one prominent Hindu leader named S. K. Srinivasan of Palakkad. They, in furtherance to the conspiracy, set out to commit terrorist act on 16.04.2022 for which 5 accused persons (A-17 to A-21) came on three two-wheelers, three of whom criminally trespassed into SKS Autos situated at Melamuri, Pallippuram, Palakkad run by S. K. Sreenivasan, and inflicted grievous injuries on Sreenivasan and killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers which the assailants were carrying with the sole intention and purpose to murder him brutally, so as to create terror in the mind of other communities and public at large. The above act of murder is in furtherance of the larger conspiracy of the 1st accused to create terror. 4.17 The investigation revealed that the leaders of PFI had justified the activities of cadres in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation ISIS and were found with possession of ISIS propaganda videos and documents for propagation. The PFI, its leaders and cadres have incited the people by provocative speeches and slogans to cause communal disharmony. 4.18. 4.17 The investigation revealed that the leaders of PFI had justified the activities of cadres in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation ISIS and were found with possession of ISIS propaganda videos and documents for propagation. The PFI, its leaders and cadres have incited the people by provocative speeches and slogans to cause communal disharmony. 4.18. On completion of investigation against A1 to A14, A16 to A19, A21 to A26, A29 to A40, and A42 to A63 and A66, final report has been filed against them (59 accused) on 17.03.2023, for offence under Sections 120B , 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w.s. 149, 120B r/w. Section 3 02 of IPC, Section 3 (a), (b), (d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act , 1988, and Sections 13 , 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967, and Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act , 1959. Submissions of the Appellant 5. According to the appellant, the case against him in the final report is that he attended a conspiracy and took a prominent part in facilitating the murder of Sreenivasan. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the trial court refusing bail to the appellant is illegal. In Crime No.318/2022 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station, alleging various offences under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act , 1988, the court below wrongly stated that the appellant, with an intention to commit the murder of a Hindu leader, committed the act. In other words, it was a political murder. NIA purposefully gave a colour of communal disharmony by deleting the name of the political party from the final report and replacing the same with Hindu leader and incorporated the provisions under the UA (P) Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the final report filed by the respondent includes more than 931 witnesses in the chargesheet, 61 protected witnesses and 1600 documents. Moreover, the prosecution relies on 670 material objects and 10 terabytes of FSL report. The investigating agency intends to make the trial as an unending process and to keep the accused behind the bars as under-trial prisoners indefinitely. Moreover, the prosecution relies on 670 material objects and 10 terabytes of FSL report. The investigating agency intends to make the trial as an unending process and to keep the accused behind the bars as under-trial prisoners indefinitely. The framing of charges has been stayed by the Honourable Apex Court in SLP Crl No.3658/2024 vide order dated 06.05.2024. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the court below erroneously found that since the offenses under sections 18 and 20 of the UAP act are alleged, the rigour under section 43D (5) will be attracted against the appellant. In fact, the alleged act in Crime No. 318/2022 was committed under political motive and in retaliation for the incident in crime No.203/2022 and hence it cannot be construed as a terrorist act as defined under section 15 of the UAP Act. 8. The learned counsel pointed out that the appellant was arrested on 10.02.2023, and he has been in judicial custody since then. While considering the voluminous documents, material objects and numerous witnesses, the trial court will not be able to complete the trial in the near future. Under such circumstances, the prolonged custody of the appellant violates their rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the NIA has moved an application before the Special Court seeking further investigation against one Shamnad P. K, who is also alleged to have been an assailant. Hence, there is no possibility that the trial will commence in the near future. Reliance was placed on the dictums laid down in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb , [ (2021) 3 SCC 713 ] , Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [ (2024) 8 SCC 293 ] , Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2024) 9 SCC 813 ] , Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109] , Athar Parwez v. Union of India , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3762] and Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors. , [ (1996) 2 SCC 616 ] Submissions of the Standing Counsel for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) 10. Sri. Sasthamangalam Ajithkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for NIA vehemently opposed the Criminal Appeal seeking bail and filed a detailed objection. , [ (1996) 2 SCC 616 ] Submissions of the Standing Counsel for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) 10. Sri. Sasthamangalam Ajithkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for NIA vehemently opposed the Criminal Appeal seeking bail and filed a detailed objection. The counsel submitted that the investigation revealed that PFI has its hidden agenda to overthrow the democracy in India and to implement Islamic rule in India by 2047 and the appellant being a member of terrorist gang, conspired on 15.04.2022 for committing terrorist act of murdering any available Hindu leader with the intention of creating terror in the minds of the Hindu community and among public at large. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the appellant prepared for commission of terrorist act by imparting/undergoing arms training, collecting the details of targets, conducted recce of the targets to eliminate them and also by committing terrorist act of murder of Sreenivasan on 16.04.2022 as a part of larger conspiracy to establish Islamic Rule in India as per their hidden agenda ‘India 2047’. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the NIA further submitted that the appellant herein approached the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam for bail vide CMP No.318/2024, against which, NIA filed detailed counter by describing the role and evidence against the appellant. On careful scrutiny of the materials placed before the NIA Special Court found that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant herein is prima facie true. The petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam vide order dated 31.08.2024. It is also submitted that, if the accused is released on bail, he will abscond and tamper with evidence in this case as he is highly influential. 12. We have heard Sri. N. A. Shafeek, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sasthamanagalam S. Ajithakumar for the NIA. 13. Before further discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the grant of bail on the ground of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in K. A. Najeeb (supra), Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra), Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh (supra) , Rabi Prakash (supra), Athar Parwez (supra) and Shaheen Welfare Association (supra). 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in K. A. Najeeb (supra), Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra), Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh (supra) , Rabi Prakash (supra), Athar Parwez (supra) and Shaheen Welfare Association (supra). 14. The Apex Court has categorically held, in a catena of decisions, that when the precious right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed, the restriction on bail envisioned in Section 43D(5) of UA(P) Act would not be a bar for the Courts to grant bail to the accused. In K. A. Najeeb (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the position in paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of the judgment, which reads as under: “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. 18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected. 19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under UAPA . Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.” 15. In paragraph 42 of Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: “42. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb [ Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713 ] being rendered by a three-Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.” 16. The Apex Court in J aved Gulam Nabi Sheikh (supra) , Rabi Prakash (supra) and Athar Parwez (supra) has emphasized that when a speedy trial is denied to an accused who has suffered prolonged incarceration, the rigorous restriction on the grant of bail with penal statutes would not be a bar for the constitutional court to grant bail. 17. In Shaheen Welfare Association (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: "That a pragmatic and constitutionally sensitive approach has to be taken where an undertrial is deprived of personal liberty for an extended period and that there is no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding within a reasonable time frame. It was also observed by the Apex Court in Shaheen Welfare Assn. that where undertrials are not directly accused of engaging in any terrorist acts, but are instead booked under S.120B IPC, or booked merely on the ground that they are found in possession of incriminating materials, a lenient view has to be taken.” 18. Now we shall proceed to consider the charges levelled against the appellant/accused and the objections raised by the prosecution against him and his entitlement for bail. Appellant : Sahad M. (A-39) Date of Arrest: 10.02.2023 Charge: 1. The appellant being cadre of PFI knowingly and intentionally became a member of terrorist gang formed by PFI to commit terrorist act as a part of larger conspiracy hatched by PFI and its office bearers and cadres since last few years to enact their India 2047 agenda of establishing Islamic rule in India. 2. In consequent to that the appellants and other accused conspired together on 16.04.2022 for committing terrorist act of murdering any available Hindu leader with intention of creating terror in the minds of the Hindu community and among public at large which resulted in the murder of Srinivasan. 3. 2. In consequent to that the appellants and other accused conspired together on 16.04.2022 for committing terrorist act of murdering any available Hindu leader with intention of creating terror in the minds of the Hindu community and among public at large which resulted in the murder of Srinivasan. 3. It is specifically alleged against the appellant that he is an active cadre of PFI and the secretary of PFI Puthuppariyaram unit. 4. It is alleged that the statement of CW 784, 786, 797, 798, 814, 822, 823 and 835 and also the statements of approvals such as A 57, A 42 establishing that the Appellant is an active cadre of PFI and he participated in the conspiracy meeting held near Khabaristhan at the Paalakkad on 15.04.2022. It is further alleged that the appellant went to Sanghuvaramedu with A22 to collect weapon and handed over of the same to the assailants. 5. Therefore, accused Sahad M (A-39) committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w. Section 149 IPC r/w. 302 IPC, Section 3 (a),(b),(d) r/w Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act , 1988 , Sections 13 , 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 and 29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 [for the sake of brevity, ‘UA(P) Act] and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act , 1959. Objection: 1. The appellant, Sahad M, is an active cadre of PFI and Secretary of PFI Puthupariyaram Unit. The statement of witnesses CW - 784, 786, 797, 798, 814, 822, 823 and 835, the statement of approvers Aboobacker Sidik and Muhammed Shajid, photo of Sahad M participating in procession of PFI which extracted from the mobile phone of accused Sadam Hussain M. K. which was seized through inspection memo dated 22.04.2022 had clearly established that the accused Sahad M is an active cadre of PFI. 2. The appellant being cadre of PFI, knowingly and intentionally became a member of terrorist gang formed by PFI to commit terrorist act as a part of larger conspiracy hatched by PFI and its office bearers and cadres since last few years to enact their India 2047 agenda of establishing Islamic rule in India. 3. 2. The appellant being cadre of PFI, knowingly and intentionally became a member of terrorist gang formed by PFI to commit terrorist act as a part of larger conspiracy hatched by PFI and its office bearers and cadres since last few years to enact their India 2047 agenda of establishing Islamic rule in India. 3. He attended arms training conducted by PFI at Falah Masjid at Chunnambuthara, Palakkad as a preparation for committing terrorist act. Being a member of terrorist gang, Sahad M attended the conspiracy meetings held near Khabristhan at Palakkad on 15.04.2022 for committing terrorist act. 4. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Sahad M proceeded to Sanghuvaramedu along with assailant Muhammed Bilal @ Bilal on KL-09-AP-9820 motorcycle owned by him and collected the weapons from the goods autorickshaw of assailant Abdul Rahman @ Adru for further handing over to the assailants. The Autorickshaw KL-13Z-947 owned by the assailant Abdu Rahman @ Adru from which the arms were collected by the appellant and assailant Muhammed Bilal @ Bilal was also seized vide seizure mahazar dated 22.04.2022. 5. In furtherance to the conspiracy, the appellant herein along with accused Muhammed Bilal conducted recce for locating the targets on 15.04.2022 by using Dio scooter of Jamsheer for committing the terrorist act. 6. Being a member of terrorist gang, the appellant attended the conspiracy meetings held on 16.04.2022 at vacant land near dIstrict hospital Palakkad for committing terrorist act of murder of Sreenivasan on 16.04.2022 with the intention of creating terror in the minds of the Hindu community and among public at large. 7. The final report along with the evidence collected discloses prima facie case against the accused Muhammed Bilal (A-22) the 1 st appellant herein and therefore, there is bar under Section 43D(5) of the UA (P) Act for release of the accused on bail. Entitlement for bail 19. Accused No.39, as evident from the materials on record, has undergone a pre-trial detention for more than two years and six months. The trial proceedings were stayed pursuant to an order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court. The final report submitted by the NIA is voluminous, comprising 1600 documents, 931 witnesses, 61 protected witnesses, 670 material objects, and ten terabytes of FSL reports. 20. The trial proceedings were stayed pursuant to an order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court. The final report submitted by the NIA is voluminous, comprising 1600 documents, 931 witnesses, 61 protected witnesses, 670 material objects, and ten terabytes of FSL reports. 20. Given the magnitude of the case of the prosecution and the stay on proceedings issued in SLP (Crl.) No. 3658/2024, which specifically interdicts the framing of charges, there is no foreseeable possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near future. Even if proceedings were to resume, the sheer number of witnesses and extensive volume of documentary and material evidence clearly indicate that the trial would remain pending for several years. The accused persons with almost similar charges have already been released on bail by this Court. 21. In Shaheen Welfare Association (supra) the Apex Court held that a pragmatic and constitutionally sensitive approach has to be taken where an undertrial is deprived of personal liberty for an extended period and there is no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Conclusion: 22. The Apex Court, by order dated 06.05.2024 has interdicted the special Court from framing the charge, and the said stay is still in force. In view of the large number of witnesses, exhibits and material objects, it is clear that the trial cannot be concluded in the near future even if the stay is vacated. In view of the discussion above, the impugned orders of the Special Court denying bail to the applicant are set aside. Crl.A.No.2289/2024 will stand allowed. The appellant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court. It shall be open to the Special Court to impose such additional conditions as it may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice. However, the conditions shall mandatorily include the following: 1. If the appellant intends to leave the Revenue District of Ernakulam, he shall obtain prior permission from the Special Court. 2. If the appellant is in possession of any passport(s), he shall surrender the same before the Special Court forthwith. 3. The appellant shall report before the investigating officer, NIA, on every Saturday and Wednesday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the end of the trial. 2. If the appellant is in possession of any passport(s), he shall surrender the same before the Special Court forthwith. 3. The appellant shall report before the investigating officer, NIA, on every Saturday and Wednesday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the end of the trial. However, it would be open for the appellant to seek modification before the Trial Court, and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its merits and appropriate orders shall be passed. 4. The appellant shall furnish to the Investigating Officer of the NIA his complete and current residential address, including any changes thereto, and shall ensure that the same remains updated at all times. 5. The appellant shall use only one mobile number during the period of bail and shall communicate the said number to the Investigating Officer of the NIA. He shall remain accessible on the said number throughout the duration of bail and shall not, under any circumstances, switch off or discard the device associated with it without prior intimation. 6. The appellant shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or threaten any witnesses in any manner. 7. The appellant shall not engage in or associate with any activity that is similar to the offence alleged against him or commit any offence while on bail. In the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions or of any other condition that may be imposed by the Special Court in addition to the above, it shall be open to the prosecution to move for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant before the Special Court, notwithstanding the fact that the bail was granted by this Court. Upon such an application being made, the Special Court shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.