ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Special P.P. for the respondent-NIA, Ranchi. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 585/2014, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/ NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 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. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that on 10.01.2016 a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area in Tandwa some local people have formed an association which is related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such association were extracting levy from coal traders and DO holders by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC, namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji, Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It was also alleged that if any businessmen hesitates to pay levy, they are threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information a raiding party was constituted on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President of the association Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons a loaded Mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of being associated with TPC organization. Both had confessed of being associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of “Amrapali Sanchalan Samittee” who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in Jail the collection of levy is being done by Pradeep Ram. On such information a raid was conducted in the house of Pradeep Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be given by Pradeep Ram with respect to the cash recovered. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1-b)(a), 26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu. On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against the other accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. On 09.04.2017 on the prayer made by the Investigating Officer offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity) were added. Since the offences involved a scheduled offence, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(3) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, Act 2008, the Central Government vide order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the case consequent to which Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was reregistered as NIA Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI. The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant that after the prayer for bail of the appellant was dismissed by this Court the appellant had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which a liberty was given to the appellant that if there is an unnecessary delay in the conclusion of trial the appellant may move before the learned trial court seeking grant of bail. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a registered government contractor. The appellant and Subhan Mian were actively involved in facilitating the running of the colliery and lifting and transporting of coal and co-accused Subhan Mian has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 394 of 2021. In fact, several of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.09.2019 and the trial has till date not been concluded. 6. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Special P.P. for the NIA has submitted that in course of investigation it has come to light that the appellant being the President of the Village Committee of Kumarkalan village in connivance with Bindeswar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu used to maintain the accounts of collection of levy which was collected from the transporters and coal companies as per direction of Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu. The appellant was associated with the top leaders of the terrorist organization TPC in order to extract levy from the coal transporters. It has been submitted that the trial is its fag end and considering the fact that there is no new ground for reconsideration of the prayer for bail of the appellant the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The appellant has been arrayed as A-11 in the first supplementary charge-sheet and the role and activities of the appellant has been depicted in para 17.22 of the said charge-sheet which reads as follows: “17.22 Role and activities of/offences established against Mantu Singh @ Prem Vikash (A-11) : Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove / in the pre-paragraphs, it is established that he is president of village committee of village Kumarkalan. He along with A-5 used to keep account of collection of levy as per direction of A-14. He, being member of terrorist gang, was closely associated with top leaders of the gang and used to extort levy from coal transporters/contractors and raised funds for the terrorist gang. Therefore, it is established that Mantu Singh @ Prem Vikas (A-11), by becoming member of terrorist gang/unlawful association TPC, proscribed by Government of Jharkhand, assisted in the operations/management of TPC in criminal conspiracy with members of the terrorist gang including A-5, A-14 with intent to aid the above said terrorist gang collected funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors/coal traders/coal transporters. Thereby accused Mantu Singh @ Prem Vikash (A- 11) committed offences under sections 120B r/w 384, 387 and 411 of the I.P.C., Sections 17, 18, and 20 of the UA(P) Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908.” 8. The appellant had moved this Court for grant of bail in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 371 of 2020 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2023 against which the appellant had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6930/2023 and vide order dated 03.07.2023 the same was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to renew the prayer for bail in case the trial is not completed within the period of one year as directed on 28.11.2022 in the case of a co-accused. The appellant had once again sought for bail in Miscellaneous Application No. 2659/2023 which was disposed of on 12.01.2024 with a liberty to the appellant to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court if there is an unnecessary delay in concluding the trial. 9. In the case of “Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb”, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , 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.” 10. In “Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu versus State through National Investigation Agency, Ranchi” in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1019 of 2018 while granting bail this Court had also taken into consideration the period of custody of the appellant in the following manner: “16. The appellant is in custody since 30.06.2018 and is on the verge of completion of 6 years in custody. The long incarceration of the appellant would also be a dominant feature while considering grant of bail apart from the fact that the trial has not yet been concluded which have been taken into consideration in the case of “Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb” (supra) noted above.” 11. Another of the co-accused namely, Birbal Ganjhu has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 159 of 2023 considering the period of incarceration of the said appellant. 12. As is evident the appellant is in custody since 19.09.2019 i.e. 5 years 6 months and the trial till date has not been concluded. On consideration of the long incarceration of the appellant in custody, the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 585/2014, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/ NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC- XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi is hereby set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. Criminal Application No. 585/2014, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/ NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC- XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi is hereby set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/ 2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016, 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.s., if any, stands closed.