JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the National Investigating Agency (in short ‘NIA’). 2. This appeal is arising out of the order dated 09.11.2023 (hereinafter called ‘the impugned order’) passed by learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna, Bihar (hereinafter called the ‘learned trial court’) in Special Case No. 07 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022. 3. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the appellant during the ongoing trial. The appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned trial court. 4. In order to appreciate the matter, it would be necessary to take note of the prosecution case. Prosecution Case 5. The prosecution case is based on a self-written report dated 12.07.2022 of Akrar Ahmed Khan, the Inspector of Police- cum-Officer-in-Charge of Phulwarisharif Police Station, Patna. In the written report, the informant alleged that on 11.07.2022, at about 7:30 PM, he got an information that some miscreants are planning to do some occurrence during the proposed Patna visit of the Prime Minister of India, they are doing training for a fortnight for this purpose. On this information, the Officer-in-Charge of Phulwarisharif Police Station brought it to the notice of the senior officers. The senior officers constituted a team of police officers and with the said team, the Officer-in-Charge/informant reached ‘Ahmed Palace’ situated in Naya Tola Nahar under Phulwarisharif Police Station. On reaching there and in course of verification, it came to his notice that some unknown persons are holding meeting on the second floor of the ‘Ahmed Palace’ during last two months and visit of unknown persons are frequent there. The informant came to know that during 6 th -7 th July also, a meeting had taken place in which some doubtful people had come. 6. It is alleged that as the informant was conducting the verification, in the meantime, Md. Jalaluddin (A-2) and Athar Parvez (A-1), who are the owner of ‘Ahmed Palace’, came there. In their presence, in presence of two independent witnesses, when the second floor of ‘Ahmed Palace’ was searched, in course of search from a room, he found a literature, namely, ‘India 2047 towards Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document not for circulation’ which was in seven pages and there were five copies of the same. In their presence, in presence of two independent witnesses, when the second floor of ‘Ahmed Palace’ was searched, in course of search from a room, he found a literature, namely, ‘India 2047 towards Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document not for circulation’ which was in seven pages and there were five copies of the same. In search, thirty pamphlets written in ‘Urdu’ and twenty five pamphlets written in ‘Hindi’ of Popular Front of India, 20 February 2021, forty nine flags made of clothes, red, green and white bearing blue colour star on the flag, booklets printed in Urdu were found. The search team also found thirty chairs placed in the big hall and on a table, photocopy of lease deed on a non-judicial stamp paper, showing the name of house owner of Farhat Bano, wife of Jalaluddin and the name of lessee as Athar Parvez, son of Abdul Qayum Ansari was found. The house owner informed that the second floor of the building was taken by Athar Parvez for purpose of giving training and training was provided on 6 th -7 th July 2022 in which people from other states had come and several doubtful person had also received training there. Athar Parvez, however, denied but when the police enquired from him in presence of Jalaluddin and local people, he told them that he was an active member of SIMI organization and after the SIMI organization was banned and the members of the same were in jail, he was providing them legal help. He informed that at present he was District General Secretary of SDPI party. He disclosed that the parcha, flags and the booklets are of Popular Front of India (in short ‘PFI’). At the instance of the PFI, he is adding the former members of SIMI with this party and is establishing a secret organization. He disclosed that the main object of the organization is to take revenge against the atrocities upon Muslims and whosoever makes comment or abuses Islam religion, he is targeted and attacked. Recently, Nupur Sharma had said wrong against the religion, against her steps are being taken to take the revenge. For this reason, revenge had been taken in Amravati in Maharashtra and Udaipur in Rajasthan. He further disclosed that in this planning, other persons are also actively participating with him. Recently, Nupur Sharma had said wrong against the religion, against her steps are being taken to take the revenge. For this reason, revenge had been taken in Amravati in Maharashtra and Udaipur in Rajasthan. He further disclosed that in this planning, other persons are also actively participating with him. He named twenty five other persons who were members of the PFI in different areas and were conducting the activities of the PFI. He disclosed that there are other people whom he identifies by face and all of them could come and get training here and they are motivated to raise their voice and unleash war against a particular community of the local society. The Officer-in-Charge conducted a raid in the house of Athar Parvez in Mohalla, Gulistan from where a bag containing red, green and white colour flags inscribed with a blue colour star on the flag and copy of the lease deed were found. From the bag, the documents known as India 2047 towards rule of Islamic India, Internal document not for circulation and other documents were also found. The contents of the documents India 2047 towards Rule of Islamic India has been mentioned in the FIR which is being reproduced as under: “… Popular Front of India (PFI) is confident that even if 10% of total Muslim population rally behind it, PFI would subjugate the coward majority community to their knees and being back the glory of Islam in India. External Help In the scenario of full-fledged show down with the State, apart from relying on ours trained PE cadres, we would need held from friendly Islamic countries. In the last few years, PFI has developed friendly relationship with Turkey, a flag-bearer of Islam. Efforts are on to cultivate reliable friendship in some other Islamic countries” 7. In course of investigation, the accused Athar Parvez during his custodial examination disclosed his association with Arman Mallick @ Imteyaz Ahmad (A-25) in business of land brokerage since long. It is stated that Arman Mallick (the appellant) had participated in several meetings of PFI and he had been provided PFI membership. The Investigating Agency has cited statement of witness Sayyed Rumi Imam (W-219) and protected witness ‘V’ (W-227) to link this appellant as an associate of the other co-accused of PFI and his involvement in criminal activity of PFI at Ahmad Palace, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 8. The Investigating Agency has cited statement of witness Sayyed Rumi Imam (W-219) and protected witness ‘V’ (W-227) to link this appellant as an associate of the other co-accused of PFI and his involvement in criminal activity of PFI at Ahmad Palace, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 8. The Investigating Agency has disclosed that during investigation, the mobile phone of the appellant was seized vide seizure list dated 14.07.2022. The extracted data of the digital article revealed that the data is having a video circulated by PFI regarding suspected genocide of Muslims in India and the preparation to counter this genocide. The extracted data is also having some videos related to religious enmity and hatred. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far as this appellant is concerned, the allegations against him are completely vague. Pursuant to the FIR in the present case, the NIA conducted a search on 28.07.2022 at nine different places including at the residence of this appellant. The seizure memo would show that an Aadhar card, driving license, voter ID, copies of cheque book, receipts of mobile, SIM cards, diary, etc., were seized from the house of the appellant. In the final form submitted against this appellant, it is stated that this appellant was associated with Tausif Alam (A-6) and Athar Parvez (A-1) and he had participated in protest march and incited people for religious enmity. His custodial interrogation was done in which he confessed his association with A-1, A-2 and A-6. It is submitted that the raid was conducted in the house of the appellant during the pre-ban period (prior to 22.09.2022). During all this period, the PFI was not a declared unlawful association in terms of the UA(P) Act. 10. It is submitted that the CCTV footage of Ahmad Palace nowhere shows that the appellant had attended any meeting or even visited the place where the alleged training was being imparted by the principal accused Athar Parvez or his associates. It is submitted that nothing incriminating was ever recovered either from the actual or constructive possession of the appellant. The routine seizures of cheques, receipts, diary, identity cards, SIMs, etc. are related to his personal and professional assignments and by no means they are in any way connected with crime in question. 11. It is submitted that nothing incriminating was ever recovered either from the actual or constructive possession of the appellant. The routine seizures of cheques, receipts, diary, identity cards, SIMs, etc. are related to his personal and professional assignments and by no means they are in any way connected with crime in question. 11. It is submitted that mere presence of some so-called objectionable videos including Tiktok video in the mobile phone of the appellant as suggested in paragraph ‘15.4’ of the charge-sheet cannot be the basis to drag the appellant in this case. 12. Learned counsel submits that so far as the statement of protected witness ‘Y’ is concerned, there is nothing definite and specific against the appellant in his statement except that the uncorroborated statement that the appellant was associated with A- 1 and he also participated in the protests against the government and incited others for anti-national activities. 13. It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna has failed to consider that although other accused persons who have been chargesheeted along with the appellant were also chargesheeted under Sections 18, 18A, 18B and 20 of the UA(P) Act, this appellant has been chargesheeted only under Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act. It is submitted that in absence of any connecting material of association/conspiracy with PFI, there was no basis to submit charge-sheet even under Sections 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act. Save and except the confession of A-1, there is absolutely nothing against the appellant in the entire case. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he had been involved in this case maliciously by the informant who was annoyed with the appellant for his previous participation in the protest against the inaction of the S.H.O., Phulwarisharif P.S. Learned counsel has placed before this Court the occurrence which took place on 28.04.2022 during the last Ramadan in which one Jalaluddin was killed by miscreants which led to registration of Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 437 of 2022 dated 29.04.2022 under Sections 379, 307, 302, 504/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act wherein this appellant had put his signature as a witness to the FIR. In his interview to the News18 correspondent, he had demanded dismissal of the Station House Officer of the Phulwarisharif Police Station. 15. In his interview to the News18 correspondent, he had demanded dismissal of the Station House Officer of the Phulwarisharif Police Station. 15. By filing a supplementary affidavit, the appellant has brought on record the statement of the protected witness ‘Y’ and the copies of the seizure lists, analysis report of extracted data and disclosure statement of Athar Parvez. It is pointed out that the protected witness ‘Y’ has stated that this appellant is engaged in the business of property dealing and for this reason, he has got good relationship with Athar Parvez and sometimes whenever any protest is staged against the government and procession is arranged, he had participated in the same and he was inciting the people of the mohalla to get involved in the activities against the nation. He has stated that the appellant is of a criminal nature and in past, he has gone to jail. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has been earlier convicted in a case under Section 302 IPC by the trial court, however, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 996 of 2007, this Court has upon noticing that the allegation of firing and causing death is confined against co-accused Bholu Mian, directed to enlarge the appellant on bail. Since 06.08.2007, the appellant is on bail. There are three more cases against him. In Patna Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016, he has been discharged from the trial under the POCSO Act, in Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 784 of 2022, he is on bail whereas in Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 216 of 2020, he has yet not been remanded. 16. Learned counsel lastly submits that in any view of the matter, there is no allegation against this appellant that he had participated in any protest march or had been involved in any unlawful activity of PFI during post-ban period. 17. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parvez in Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024 respectively. 17. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parvez in Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024 respectively. Both of them have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after noticing that the PFI was not a banned organization on the date of lodging of the FIR and mere association of the accused persons as a member of the PFI during the pre-ban period and their participation in the protests organized by the PFI would not amount to a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in its order that PFI is not a terrorist organization and there is no allegation that the appellant was a member of the terrorist gang or organization. Submissions on behalf of the NIA 18. Learned ASG representing the NIA has, though opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant, however, as the arguments advanced, learned ASG was called upon to place the materials showing involvement of the appellant in any unlawful activities of the PFI after its ban which may be prima-facie taken as a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of the UA(P) Act, learned ASG accepts at the Bar that there is no specific material to demonstrate participation of the appellant in any unlawful activity of the organization during the post-ban period. Learned ASG has, however, hastened to add that this appellant is an active member of the PFI and being close to Athar Parvez (A-1), he has been involved in inciting the people of a particular community to participate in the protests against the government. He had been participating in the religious processions and demonstrations against the policies of the government. It is, however, not contested that no such activity of the PFI in which the appellant may have been seen participating has been brought on the record. At last, the learned ASG has not much contested the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant would be standing if not on a better then at least at equal footing with the case of Athar Parvez (A-1) who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consideration 19. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASG for the NIA. Consideration 19. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASG for the NIA. We have also gone through the disclosure statements of Athar Parvej (A-1) (Annexure ‘A-10’ to the supplementary affidavit) and the confessional statement of the appellant (Annexure-A11). We have also gone through the statement of the protected witness ‘Y’ and other documents which have been brought on record with the supplementary affidavit. All these materials would disclose that the appellant happen to be a member of the PFI. He was participating in the protest march organized in Patna during the year 2018-2019 against the CAA/NRC Act. During this period, he got acquainted with the PFI activists such as Tausif Raja and others. This appellant has stated that the ‘Document 2047’ is a broad roadmap for making India an Islamic country and this document is circulated among the dedicated cadre of the PFI. He received this document in the meeting of the PFI. He has stated that as per the said document, they were providing physical training to the people in different camps and they were also canvassing the aim and object of the PFI. On 6-7 July, one such camp was organized in the Naya Tola, Phulwarisharif, Patna in which some selected workers had participated. They had planned to organize a march against Triple Talaq and CAA/NRC Laws during the Patna visit of the Prime Minister. In the meantime, in the night of 11.07.2022, police conducted a raid whereafter the plan was suspended. He had lastly talked to Tausif Raja on 12.07.2022. 20. The statement of the appellant and other materials on the record nowhere show that during the post-ban period, this appellant had been involved in any unlawful activities of the PFI. He has been chargesheeted under Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act which has been highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. It is his submission that while the co-accused have also been chargesheeted under various other sections of the UA(P) Act, this appellant has been chargesheeted under Sections 121, 121A, 153A and 153B of IPC and Sections 13, 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act. Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act would fall under Chapter IV, therefore charge-sheet has been filed under these Sections with sole intention to invite the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act. Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act would fall under Chapter IV, therefore charge-sheet has been filed under these Sections with sole intention to invite the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act. It is submitted that on a bare perusal of Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act, it would appear that those provisions would not be attracted in case of the appellant. This Court would reproduce Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act as under:- 18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc. —Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. 20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation. —Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” 21. The words ‘terrorist act’ and ‘terrorist gang’ have been defined under Section 2(k) and Section 2(l) of the UA(P) Act. Definition under these provisions are being extracted hereunder for a ready reference:- 2(k) “terrorist act” has the meaning assigned to it in section 15, and the expressions “terrorism” and “terrorist” shall be construed accordingly; 2(l) “terrorist gang” means any association, other than terrorist organisation, whether systematic or otherwise, which is concerned with, or involved in, terrorist act; 22. In view of the definition of the word ‘terrorist’, it would be imperative to have a glance over Section 15 which describes ‘terrorist act’ which reads as under:- 15. In view of the definition of the word ‘terrorist’, it would be imperative to have a glance over Section 15 which describes ‘terrorist act’ which reads as under:- 15. Terrorist act.— (1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,— (a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause (i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or (ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or (iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or (iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or (iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or (b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or (c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or an international or inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act; or commits a terrorist act. (2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule. 23. (2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule. 23. Insofar as the present appellant is concerned, the allegation against him is not of doing any act with an intent to threaten the integrity and sovereignty of the country by using the kind of weapons mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15. There is no allegation that he was involved in any act of the nature envisaged in clause (b) and clause (c) of Section 15. 24. At this stage, this Court finds that in case of Athar Parvez (A-1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed that in the charge-sheet, there is no allegation that the appellant was a member of the terrorist gang or organization. The PFI of which the appellant was a member has not been declared a terrorist organization within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UA(P) Act, 1967. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noticed the statement of the protected witnesses ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ and held that “the testimony of the protected witness ‘Y’ when perused indicates that the appellant is alleged to be a person of staunch religious nature who used to participate in religious processions and demonstrations against the policies of the government. He had been motivating the people of his locality to join the activities of PFI. The meetings held at Ahmad Palace have been acknowledged by him to be so held, however, he is completely silent with regard to the nature of the activities or the meetings held therein.” 25. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that “… Beyond that, there is nothing which is alleged against the appellant which would bring the act or omission of the appellant within the ambit of the alleged offences committed by him under the UAPA, 1967.” 26. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that “… Beyond that, there is nothing which is alleged against the appellant which would bring the act or omission of the appellant within the ambit of the alleged offences committed by him under the UAPA, 1967.” 26. As regards the materials which had been allegedly recovered from the said appellant especially the documents which according to the prosecution contained the incriminating contents as per the seizure memo, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “as per seizure memo those were recovered from the second floor whereas as per the rent deed, on which the prosecution itself has placed reliance, only the first floor was rented out of Ahmad Palace to the said appellant and he was in exclusive possession thereof.” 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed “…. This also raises some doubt with regard to the recovery of the material….” 28. We find from the materials on the record that the appellant has been involved in this case with reference to the said document which was recovered from the second floor of the Ahmad Palace. So far as the seizure list relating to the search conducted in the house of the appellant is concerned, it does not show recovery of any document of the kind mentioned in the FIR from the house of the appellant. 29. In the present case, the appellant is in jail since 14.07.2022. He has undergone custody for about 2 years 9 months. Like the case of Athar Parwez, in case of this appellant, the first condition under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 is duly satisfied, hence the rigours of the said provision would not be attracted in the case of this appellant. 30. In this case, the charges have been framed on 09.08.2024 but as informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the NIA, so far only one witness has been fully examined. The cross-examination of PW-2 is presently going on. In this fact, this Court finds that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph ‘32’ of the judgment in the case of Athar Parvez would also be available in case of the appellant. Paragraph ‘32’ of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Athar Parvej is being reproduced hereunder:- 32. The Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022. Paragraph ‘32’ of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Athar Parvej is being reproduced hereunder:- 32. The Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022. He has undergone custody for more than two years and four months. Chargesheet was filed on 07.01.2023 but till date charges have not been framed which is an admitted position. There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses cited by the prosecution to be examined. There can be no doubt that the trial is not likely to complete soon, and as has been laid down by various judgments of this Court as has been referred to above, the Appellant cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial. If such an approach is allowed Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand violated. The ratio as laid down by this Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (supra) as also the other judgments in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (supra) and Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (supra) would be applicable to this case and would squarely apply entitling the Appellant for grant of bail. 31. In the totality of the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the learned trial court. The appellant shall be released on bail immediately by the learned Special Court on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper to be imposed to secure the presence of the appellant in course of trial. Such orders shall be passed after hearing learned counsel for the respondent. 32. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and no part of it shall cause prejudice to the case of the either parties and it will have no bearing on the trial. 33. This application is allowed.