JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P. P. (NIA) appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 126 of 2022 in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2019 corresponding to R. C. No. 13/2019/NIA/DLI arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 225 of 2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The First information Report was instituted on the basis of self-statement of Sanoj Kumar Choudhary, the officer incharge of Balumath P.S. wherein it has been stated that on 3.12.2018, an information was received that operatives of extremist group-PLFI have assembled in a jungle and were planning to commit an offence. After making a station diary entry and after informing the superior police officials, a raid was conducted in the jungle and on chase four persons including the appellant were apprehended. On a search conducted, a rifle with magazine and several cartridges were found from the possession of Gulab Yadav, a rifle and magazine with several cartridges were recovered from the possession of Ravi Yadav, from the possession of Pawan Kumar Yadav, fifteen pieces of 5.56 MM cartridges and mobile phones were recovered while from the possession of the Rakesh Kumar Paswan, fourteen pieces of 5.56 MM live cartridges and mobile phones were recovered. 4. Bases on the aforesaid allegations, Balumath P.S. Case No. 225 of 2018 was instituted against the appellant and others for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 (i) (ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 5. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sub Section (5) of Section 6 read with section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 vide MHA, New Delhi, CTCR Division Order No. 11011/30/2019/IS-IV dated 24.06.2019 directed the NIA to take up investigation of the case and accordingly Balumath P.S. Case No. 225 of 2018 was re-registered as NIA Case No. RC/13/2019/NIA/DLI under section 25(1-A)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 (i) (ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 6. 6. A supplementary chargesheet was submitted by the NIA against seven accused persons including the present appellant who has been arrayed as A-4 and the added sections are sections 120 B read with Sections 384, 385, 386,387 IPC, Sections 17, 18 B, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act, Section 25(1-A), 26 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of CLA Act. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant that there is no cogent evidence collected by the investigating agency that the appellant was involved in collection of funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from Contractors engaged in developmental activities. It has been submitted that not a single person has made any complaint against the appellant of paying extortion money to the appellant. The allegations of carrying foreign rifles to terrorise the Contractors has been falsified on account of the fact that no such recovery has been made from the appellant and the only incriminating materials recovered were 15 numbers of live rounds of 5.56 mm bullets and some pamphlets of PLFI. The appellant is in custody since 03.12.2018 and the trial has till date not been concluded. 8. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the NIA has submitted that in the disclosure memos, it has come to light that the appellant was an active member of the PLFI and worked under the Sub-Zonal Commander and Area Commander of the PLFI. The C.D.R. analysis of the mobile phone of the appellant and other accused persons disclosed that all were well connected with each other during the relevant period, which furthermore signifies the concerted act of all the accused persons that they all are engaged in collecting levy from businessmen. Mr. Das submits that P.W. 55, P.W. 56 and P.W. 57 have stated about the appellant and his associates demanding levy from Contractors over phone and on non-payment of such demands, their machines/JCBs were burnt. As per Mr. Das, the prayer for bail of the appellant has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this court and no fresh ground has been enumerated for reconsideration of the prayer for bail. 9. The modus-operandi of the terrorist organization PLFI has been revealed at paragraph 17.14 of the supplementary charge-sheet which reads as follows: “ 17.4 ….. Das, the prayer for bail of the appellant has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this court and no fresh ground has been enumerated for reconsideration of the prayer for bail. 9. The modus-operandi of the terrorist organization PLFI has been revealed at paragraph 17.14 of the supplementary charge-sheet which reads as follows: “ 17.4 ….. In August 2018, Gulab Kumar Yadav ( A-1) Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav ( A-2), Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji ( A-3) and Pawan Kumar Yadav ( A-4) joined PLFI through the then Sub Zonal Commander of Latehar and Chatra, Santosh Yadav @ Tiger ( A-5) for extortion. It is pertinent to mention here that Gulab Kumar Yadav ( A-1), Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav ( A-2), had also been the members of CPI ( Maoist) from 2014 to 2016 and worked under the leadership of Pramjeet Mochi @ Sonu Mochi @ Sonu(A-7). But in 2016, they left CPI (Maoist) as they were not able to earn enough money. In 2016 itself, Pramjeet Mochi @ Sonu Mochi @ Sonu(A-7) also left CPI (Maoist) with 6-8 foreign made weapons of CPI(Maoist) and constituted his own nexalite organization i.e. “Maowadi-2”. In August, 2018, Gulab Kumar Yadav ( A-1) received two foreign made (HK33 rifle and COLT AR15 rifle) weapons and ammunition from Pramjeet Mochi @ Sonu Mochi @ Sonu(A-7) through Suresh Yadav @ Sirisih Yadav ( A-6). These weapons were used by Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1), Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @Ravi Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav(A-2), Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3) and Pawan Kumar Yadav ( A-4) on joining PLFI in Balumath Area. On joining PLFI, accused A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, on the directions of A-5, carried out various militant activities to spread fear in the mind of general public and contractors for extortion of levy. On 8th August, 2018, A-2 along with A-5 and A-1 fired at Jharkhand Police at Lawalong Main Chowk to spread panic among public and police. In September, 2018, A-2 on the directions of A-5, asked Muzamil Mia @ Mujahid Mia, resident of village Murpa Pinderkom, Thana Balumath DistrictLatehar, for paying the levy of Rs.50,000 but due to refusal of payment of levy by Muzamil Mia, A-2 and his team including A-1, A-3 and A burnt 02 of his payloaders. In September, 2018, A-2 on the directions of A-5, asked Muzamil Mia @ Mujahid Mia, resident of village Murpa Pinderkom, Thana Balumath DistrictLatehar, for paying the levy of Rs.50,000 but due to refusal of payment of levy by Muzamil Mia, A-2 and his team including A-1, A-3 and A burnt 02 of his payloaders. Later on, in October- November 2018, A-2 and his team asked for paying levy of Rs.1 Lakh, by callilng one Santosh Yadav contractor, who had undertaken the construction work of the bridge between Lebrahi and Indua, village Lebrahi, Police Station Balumath, District-Latehar. As the contractor refused to pay levy, A-5 directed A-2, on 22 November 2018 to attack his construction site. Subsequent to this A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 attacked the construction site”. 10. The role and activities of the appellant who has been arrayed as A-4 has been depicted in paragraph 17.13 of the supplementary charge-sheet which reads as follows: “ 17.13 Role and activities of/offences established against Pawan Kumar Yadav S/o Govind Yadav (A-4): Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove/in the pre-paragraphs, it is established that A-4 being member of the PLFI and worked under the command/directions of accused Santosh Yadav @ Tiger (A-5), Sub Zonal Commander of Latehar & Chatra and Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2), Area Commander of Balumath, Latehar of terrorist gang/unknown association, PLFI. He was an active member of the team of accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav (A-2). He along, with accused Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3), was recruited in PLFI by accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit JI @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2) and Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1). He used to carry out militant operations along with his associates i.e. accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2), Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1) and Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3). He had facilitated Santosh Yadav @ Tiger (A-5), Sub-Commander of Latehar & Chatra districts of PLFI for collection of levy amount along with Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2). He used to carry foreign rifle to spread terror in the mind of contractors for carrying unlawful and militant activities of PLFI in Balumath area. He along with other accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2). He used to carry foreign rifle to spread terror in the mind of contractors for carrying unlawful and militant activities of PLFI in Balumath area. He along with other accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2). Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1) & Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3) carried out various attacks at the sites of contractors and local businessmen for spreading fear and extort money. Therefore, it is established that Pawan Kumar Yadav (A-4) by becoming member of PLFI, a terrorist gang/unlawful association proscribed by the Government of Jharkhand, assisted in strengthening of PLFI and indulged in criminal conspiracy along with other members namely, A-1, A-2, A-3 & A-5 with an intent to aid the above said terrorist gang wherein he tried to collect fund from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors engaged in development projects. Thereby, accused Pawan Kumar Yadav (A-4) committed offences under sections (i) 120B r/w 384, 385, 386 & 387 of the IPC, sections 17, 18B & 20 of the UA(P) Act, 1967, Section 25 (1A), 26 & 29 of the Act, 1959 and sections 17 of CLA Act, 1908 (ii) Sections 18, 20 & 23 of the Act, 1967, in the present supplementary charge-sheet, the additional offences established against the accused will be added.” 11. On consideration of the entire facts of the case, a coordinate Bench of this court had rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant in Crimianl Appeal (D.B.) No. 184 of 2020 vide order dated 09.09.2020. It is an admitted position that the trial has till date not been concluded and the appellant is languishing in jail custody since 03.12.2018 i.e., more than 6 years. At this juncture, we may refer to the case of “ Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb” , reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , wherein it has been held as follows: “ 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. 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.” 12. As we have noted above, the appellant has been incarcerated in custody for more than 6 years. On consideration of the same, we while setting aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 126 of 2022 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi direct that the appellant above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned AJC XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2019 corresponding to R. C. No. 13/2019/NIA/DLI arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 225 of 2018, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial. 13. This appeal is allowed. 14. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.