Crl.A. 162/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY This appeal under section 21 of the National Investigating Agenc y Act, 2008 (hereafter for short referred to as the Act 2008) raises a challenge to the order dated 7/10/2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Kamrup a t Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 02/2010 arising out of Bail Application No. 2137/20 10 rejecting the appellant’s prayer for bail in Special NIA Case No. 1/2010 (cor responding to NIA FIR Case No. 10/2010) under sections 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/468 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as the Code) read with section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereafter referred to a s the 1967 Act). Admittedly as on date, sections 18/38/29/40 of the Act 1967 hav e been added to the tally of offences against the accused appellant. In addition to the prayer for admission for the present appeal, a direction for releasing him on bail has also been made. In compliance of the order dated 1/11/ 2010 of this Court, the NIA has produced the updated case diary relatable to the investigation of the aforementioned case. We have heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. K. D . Singh, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, NIA. A FIR dated 1/5/2010 was lodged by the City Police Reserve, Guwa hati, disclosing that following a search and raid in the house of Shri. Y. Nabin chand s/o Shri Ibo Tombe of Luwong Sangbam, P.S. Heiratand Dist-Manipur East, he was arrested along with one Shri Khundong Tomba s/o Lt. K.H. Itocha of vill-Wan gkhen Nongthem Pukhuri Mapal, P.S. Porampat Dist. Imphal East and seizure of the articles mentioned therein was also made. Noonmati P.S. Case No. 159/2010 under sections 120(b)/121/121(A)/ 122/468 of the Code read with section 10/13 of the Act 1967 was registered on the said FIR. It was alleged in the said FIR that the persons apprehended were active members of the banned outfit UNLF, Manipur. It disclosed as well that whereas the former was the Deputy Secretary of Human Reso urce Development Wing of the banned organisation, the latter was the Vice Chairm an thereof. They were accused of being fugitive and lodged in Guwahati for the p urpose of carrying out illegal activities against the Government of India as wel l as the State to achieve the object of secession of the State of Manipur from I ndia through armed struggle. Their involvement in extortion for the purpose of f inancing the banned organization was also alleged. In course of the investigation that followed, the Central Govern ment decided to handover the same to the NIA vide Ministry of Home Affairs, Gove rnment of India Letter No. 11034/20/2010-IS-VI dated 14/9/2010 in exercise of po wer under section 6(5) read with section 8 of the Act 2008. The investigation ha s since been taken over by the NIA and is pending completion. The accused appellant admittedly had been arrested on 8/9/2010 and is since then lodged in jail. Following the rejection of his request for bail on his apprehen sion, he followed it up with an application before the learned Special Judge, NI A, Kamrup at Guwahati reiterating his request. His prayer for bail having been r ejected by the impugned order he is in appeal. In his application before the learned Court below, the accused a ppellant has claimed himself to be a renowned social worker and an youth cum stu dent leader presently occupying the position of the President of North East Mani puri Students’ Organization (for short hereafter referred to as the NEMSO). He h as claimed absolute innocence and has insisted total disassociation with the cha rges in connection with which he has been arrested. The learned Special Court wh ile passing the order in challenge exhaustively considered the case diary in con nection with the case produced before it and being of the considered opinion tha t the materials disclosed thereby did not justify the grant of bail, rejected th e prayer therefor. Mr. Sharma while referring to the various provisions of the enac tments involved has urged against the involvement of the accused appellant in th e alleged offence. He has reiterated his pleaded stand to impress upon this Cour t that he has been falsely indicted in the case. Drawing the attention of this C ourt to section 10 of the Act 1967 in particular, the learned Sr. Counsel has ar gued that even assuming that the accused appellant at the relevant time was a me mber of the banned organisation as alleged, in absence of any evidence of his pa rticipation in any of its activities to be construed as terrorist acts, he is en titled to bail. In endorsement of this plea, Mr. Sharma has relied on the decisi on of the Apex Court in R.K. Krishna Kumar versus State of Assam and others, AIR 1998 SC 530. While contending that the accused appellant’s detention in custody for over 60 d ays as on date has rendered the continuation thereof redundant for the purpose o f investigation, he has argued that having regard to the materials available aga inst him, there is no scope of even growing an impression that he is remotely as sociated with the offences embodied by the sections invoked. Mr. Das in response, relying on a gist of the extracts from the case diary/supplementary case diary in connection with the investigation in the case has insistently urged that having regard to the disclosures therefrom even at this stage, it is apparent that the accused appellant is deeply involved in t he offences registered against him and that there being no convincing and persua sive ground to hold otherwise, the prayer bail more particularly, in view of sec tion 43D(v) of the Act 1967 ought to be rejected in limine. As stated above, the learned Court below has rejected the accuse d appellant’s prayer for bail with due reference to the case diary of the case a nd the revelations therefrom. The forwarding report following the arrest of the accused appellant discloses the following grounds of his arrest:- (1) He is keeping link with the UNLF and arrange for their shelter at Guwaha ti City. (2) He has collected fund in and around Guwahati for UNLF. (3) The lap top computer, two pieces of mobile phone, one hard disk and CD h ad been recovered and seized from his possession. An analysis of the information s stored therein is indispensably essential. (4) He needs to be thoroughly interrogated in the interest of the investigat ion of the case. The request for his remand was reiterated thereafter by the NIA. On a perusal of the case diary/supplementary case diary produced before us, we a re of the view that the investigation is not yet complete and from the disclosur es made thereby, we are of the view there are reasonable grounds for believing t hat the accusations against the accused appellant are prima facie true. For obvi ous reasons, we do not intend to spell out the details of the findings recorded against him by the investigating agency. Suffice it to mention that the material s so collected at this stage do not justify his grant of bail in the above case having regard to the rigours of the relevant provisions of law applicable. The decision relied upon by the petitioner is inapplicable in the facts of the p resent case. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which i s accordingly dismissed.