JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned A.P.P. appearing for the NIA. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 616 of 2024 in connection with R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) case no. 3 of 2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned A.J.C. 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 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 the appellant - 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. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a businessman having business operations in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand as he runs two coal transportations firms – (a) M/s. Pradeep Ram and (b) M/s. Transcon Infra. The appellant is in custody since 25.06.2016 and the trial has not been concluded till date. The implication of the appellant in the present case is on account of a raid conducted in his house wherein Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered and this was construed to be extortion money collected from the Contractors in connivance with some of the co- accused persons, some of whom have been granted bail by this court. It has been submitted that the maximum punishment for most of the offences for which the appellant has been charge-sheeted has already been completed by the appellant. Despite the specific direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu Vs. Union of India ” , the trial has not reached its conclusion and in such circumstances, the appellant deserves to be released on bail. 6. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the NIA has submitted that it is established that the appellant is the member of the T.P.C. and huge amount of money recovered from his house is a pointer to his involvement with the top leadership of the organization. The appellant used to collect levy from the contractors, transporters and traders on behalf of T.P.C. The appellant had indulged in attending meetings with the T.P.C. leaders and was involved in collection of levy on behalf of T.P.C. and the Village Committee for smooth running of Amrapali Magadh Colliery. He further submitted that the bail application of co- accused Munesh Ganjhu has been rejected by this court. He further submitted that the bail application of co- accused Munesh Ganjhu has been rejected by this court. The appellant has been arrayed as A-4 in the 1st supplementary charge-sheet and the role and activities of the appellant has been depicted in paragraph 17.15 in the said charge-sheet which reads as follows: “ 17.15 Role and activities of/offences established against Pradeep Verma @ Pradeep Ram (A-4): Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove in the pre- paragraphs, it is established that he is member of Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti of Winglat village in Amrapali coal mine area. 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 and acquired Proceeds of Terrorism. He was arrested on 11.01.2016 with cash worth Rs. 57,57,710. Therefore, it is established that Pradeep Verma @ Pradeep Ram (A-4), 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-1, A-2, A-3, 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 and knowingly concealed/retained/dishonestly possessed such extorted cash amount worth Rs. 57,57,710/- and acquired proceeds of terrorism in the form of movable/immovable properties through the terrorist fund and thereby conspired with co-accused for terrorist act. Thereby accused Pradeep Verma @ Pradeep Ram (A-4) committed offences under Sections 120B r/w 387, 384, 386, 386 r/w 411, 414 of the IPC, Sections 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908.” 7. The appellant had earlier moved before this court for grant of bail in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 89 of 2020 which however was rejected vide order dated 14.09.2020 as a prima-facie case was made out against the appellant in terms of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The changed circumstances as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that subsequent to the rejection of his prayer for bail, several co-accused persons have been granted bail apart from the fact that the appellant has been incarcerated in judicial custody for long. 8. The changed circumstances as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that subsequent to the rejection of his prayer for bail, several co-accused persons have been granted bail apart from the fact that the appellant has been incarcerated in judicial custody for long. 8. In the case of “ Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu ” in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1019 of 2018 while granting bail, this court has 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. 9. Another of the co-accused namely, Birbal Ganjhu has been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 159 of 2023 considering the period of custody undergone by the said accused. Some of the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail are Mahesh Agarwal in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 175 of 2022, Ajay Kumar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 535 of 2022, Subhan Mian in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 394 of 2021 and Ajit Kumar Thakur in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 999 of 2019. In the case of “ Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar Vs. Union of India ” in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 554 of 2024, it has been held as follows: 11. …………. The Supplementary Charge-Sheet of National Investigating Agency is a document steeped in ambiguity as the hierarchical structures in collection of levy from the contractors have been enumerated in para 17.5 of the Supplementary Charge-Sheet which does not include a Zonal Commander which the appellant is as per the Investigating Agency but at the same time saddling the appellant of extorting levy from Coal Transporters / Contractors albeit in a generalized sense would not enhance the role of the appellant. 10. 10. We have referred to the case of “ Bhikhan Ganjhu ” (supra) primarily to emphasize on the fact that the allegations against the appellant are cocooned in a generalised manner save and except the recovery of the huge amount of cash from the house of the appellant which has been construed to be the extorted amount oblivious to the fact that the appellant was carrying on the business of transportation. The other eminent feature of the case is the period of custody undergone by the appellant which is since 25.06.2016 and in this context 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. 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.” 11. In view of the circumstances noted above, specifically with respect to the period of custody undergone by the appellant we while setting aside the order 01.05.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 616 of 2024 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned A.J.C. 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 A.J.C. XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with in connection with R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) case no. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned A.J.C. XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with in connection with R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) case no. 3 of 2018 corresponding to Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 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. 12. We make it clear that the learned trial court shall not be influenced while conducting the trial of any of the observations made by us in this order as such observations/findings are restricted only for the purposes of grant of bail to the appellant. 13. This appeal is allowed.