Ms. Tara Narula, Ms. Tamanna and Mr. Anurudh Pankaj Ramanathan, Advs v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, assailing the Order dated 03.12.2022 (Impugned Order) passed by the learned Additional Special Judge – 03, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, (ASJ) in case bearing no. NIA RC No. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI titled NIA vs Hafiz Muhammad Saeed & Ors., whereby the first bail application filed by the Appellant seeking regular bail was dismissed. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 Appellant has prayed for setting aside of the Impugned Order and granting of regular bail to him in the aforementioned registered NIA case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. Briefly, the present matter is, allegedly, a case of conspiracy pertaining to organized, funded and orchestrated terrorism by the Intelligence Agencies of Pakistan, through creation of several terrorist organizations which compose of strategists, planners, fund-raisers, financial conduits, executors, etc., who devise organization of bandhs, forcible closure of roads and Government establishments, instigating general public to violence, arson, mass unlawful attacks against the Security Forces, etc, thus, creating surcharged atmosphere and circumstances where human lives are lost and the sentiments attached to such deaths are exploited to their advantage. It has been alleged that these violent activities for over two and a half decades have led to massive loss of life and injuries to thousands of innocent persons, which are perpetrated by various proscribed terrorist organizations, namely Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), etc, 3. is alleged Further, the ultimate goal of organizations is to achieve secession of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India and to that effect, they are also imparting and equipping a large number of youth from the Kashmir Valley with sophisticated weaponry, etc, and as such are waging a war against the Government of India by resorting to strategized stone Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 pelting, repeated attacks on the Security Forces, government establishments, public property, etc, thereby threatening sovereignty, integrity and unity of India. 4. It was further alleged that these terrorist organizations also rely upon the regular flow of funds obtained by them from the domestic and international unlawful channels such as hawala networks, etc, which have continuously fuelled the violence in the Kashmir Valley despite the huge deployment of the Security Forces by Government of India to neutralise the terrorist and secessionist activities. 5. In relation to this, the Central Government received a credible information that an individual named Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, in connivance with the active militants of proscribed terrorist organizations and leaders of Hurriyat Conference, is raising funds through various illegal channels and as such they have entered into a larger conspiracy to cause the said disruption of peace, and instigate violence in Kashmir. The NIA, was, accordingly, directed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to launch an investigation into the matter. Consequently, case was registered, bearing no. RC- 10/2017/NIA/DLI, under Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and investigation, thus, ensued. 6. The Prosecution alleges that the investigation uncovered that apart from these terrorist organizations, a political conglomerate of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 various organizations, i.e., the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was formed in 1993, disguised to mask the secessionist activities to claim the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is alleged that the investigation unravelled that several individuals, including the Appellant, were part of the APHC/Hurriyat Conference either by being a member/officer bearer or by way of being an active supporter/worker. In 2008, the APHC was split into three factions of which, one APHC(G) was headed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani/SAS Geelani, and the Appellant, amongst other persons, is associated with it. It is alleged by the prosecution that APHC entered into a criminal conspiracy and their modus operandi was to instigate the general public, especially the youth, to observe strikes and hold Anti-India protests, demonstrations, etc., using public platforms such as press releases, newspapers, social media and others, thereby, creating an atmosphere which is conducive for propagation of their secessionist goals. It is alleged that all the Hurriyat leaders are guided by the ideology of „freedom‟ which is the secession of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India. 7. The Prosecution also alleged that during the investigation, it was found these protests and demonstrations were not spontaneous or random, rather were happening as per the „calendar of protests‟ prepared by SAS Geelani and others, which contain detailed instructions on holding and carrying them out. 8. In course of the investigation, the NIA sent the Appellant summons under Section 43F of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 1967 [UA(P) Act] on various dates in June-July, 2017 to join the investigation. Upon receipt thereof, the Appellant appeared before the NIA / Respondent and was interrogated for several days, eventually, leading up to his arrest on 24.07.2017 by the NIA, and he presently remains in the judicial custody. 9. Subsequently, the Appellant was arrayed as the Accused No. 5 in the Chargesheet filed by the NIA on 18.01.2018, which included other 11 accused persons (including two absconders) namely:  Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (A-1),  Mohd. Yusuf Shah @ Salahuddin (A-2),  Aftab Ahmad Shah@ Shahid-ul-Islam (A-3),  Altaf Ahmad Shah @ Fantoosh (A-4),  Nayeem Ahmad Khan (A-5),  Farooq Ahmad Dar @ Bitta Karate (A-6),  Mohammad Akbar Khanday (A-7),  Raja Mehrajuddin Kalwal (A-8),  Bashir Ahmad Bhat @ Peer Saifullah (A-9),  Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (A-10),  Kamran Yusuf (A-11) and;  Javed Ahmad Bhatt (A-12).

10. The case of the Prosecution against the Appellant (A-5) is that he is one of the main strategists and planners of the criminal conspiracy entered into with other leaders of Hurriyat Conference in connivance with Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and other terrorist organizations to propagate secessionist and separatist ideology in the Jammu and Kashmir. The Appellant is also stated to be the Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir National Front (JKNF) having the primary membership of APHC(G), the focus of which organization is Right to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 self-determination of Kashmir and holding protests to boycott elections in the State. 11. The investigation seized two letters dated 10.03.2006 and

17.03.2006, allegedly written by Mujahideen Area Commander (Local Amir) of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, a banned terrorist organization, requesting financial assistance from the Appellant. 21 blank letter heads in the name of Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT), a banned terrorist organization, were also seized, through which the Prosecution sought to establish that the Appellant has close relations with the proscribed terrorist organizations. 12. It was also alleged that a video, procured by the Prosecution from an open source (YouTube), shows the Appellant visiting the area

where three terrorists were killed on 11.07.2017 at Budgam, Srinagar, with the supporters of ISIS, a proscribed terrorist organization under UA(P) Act. It is alleged that the Appellant, with these terrorist organizations is in unison in the act of waging war against the Indian Government. 13. Further, a Sting Operation was carried out by India Today, a T.V. News Channel. It is alleged that certain admissions were made by the Appellant in the un-edited version of the Audio / Video of the same furnished by the Office of India Today, that the terrorists and separatists had received financial support from Pakistan to the tune of 200 crores to organize Anti-India protests and agitations after the killing of Burhan Wani, the then Commander of Hizb-ul-Mujahiddin, and the Appellant also confirmed the receipt of funds from Saudi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 Arabia / Dubai through hawala channels and the role played by the Pakistan High Commission. Moreover, it was alleged that the Appellant admitted that he would be able to fuel unrest at any time, provided he is funded. Further, it has been alleged that during the investigation, the voice specimen samples of the Appellant and other accused persons were taken and those matched with the voice samples of the Audio in the Sting Operation, as per the CFSL report. 14. That apart, the Prosecution alleged that the investigation unearthed that there is a nexus between the terrorists, Hurriyat leaders, and the Pakistan‟s Establishment as they are favoring the Students of Kashmir who would become the future doctors and technocrats and will lean to favour Pakistan. A set of letters were allegedly seized from the house of the Appellant, wherein he recommended Students for admission in a Medical College in Pakistan, as the Student‟s family had remained committed to the freedom struggle through thick and thin. The Prosecution alleged that, as per the investigation, the Students recommended were either relatives of ex-militants or relatives of families of active militants who were involved in various Anti-National activities or were known to several Hurriyat leaders. It was also alleged that various letters seized by the Prosecution establish that commissions were earned by helping these Students secure an admission in MBBS Colleges in Pakistan, which funded the terrorist activities. 15. The Prosecution further alleged the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused A-3 to A-10, including Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 the Appellant (A-5), are a part of the APHC/Hurriyat conference, either by way of being a member/officer bearer or by way of being an active supporter/worker. The accused A-4 to A-9 are alleged to be associated with the faction APHC(G), headed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The Call Detail Records (CDR) analysis allegedly shows that the Appellant was telephonically connected with other co-accused persons, including Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (A-10) and a militant of LeT. It is also alleged that the accused A-3 to A-12, including the Appellant (A-5), were in contact with each other, directly or indirectly, wherefrom the Prosecution sought to establish that there is meeting of minds in furtherance of a conspiracy to wage a war against the Government of India. 16. The documents and digital devices collected during the investigation are alleged to be incriminating material against A-3 to A-12 stating that they are a part of a gang who, with the help of A-1 and A2 and others, coordinated to form strategies and action plan for organizing bandhs, strikes, violent protests etc. These documents and digital evidences allegedly indicate existence of an action plan for instigating general public to follow their lead in observing unlawful activities, which have led to grave loss of life and property. The alleged connection of A1 and A2 with A3 to A12 is established via a network of directions circulated through e-mails, SMSs, Whatsapp, Videos and other forms of communication. 17. As far as the past conduct of the Appellant is concerned, the Appellant is alleged to be a former militant with various cases of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 terrorism against him and other accused persons. Further, they had allegedly been detained under the Public Safety Act on various occasions. 18. During the course of proceedings before the learned ASJ, the Appellant, since his arrest, had preferred two interim bail applications, both of which were dismissed by the learned ASJ vide Orders dated

24.10.2017 and 18.11.2019. 19. Vide Order dated 16.03.2022, the Charges had been framed against the Appellant and other accused persons, and he was charged under Section 120B, 121, 121A of the IPC and under Section 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 39 and 40 of the UA(P) Act. The said Order has been challenged before this Court and is currently pending adjudication in Criminal Appeal No. 379/2023 titled Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. State (Through NIA). 20. The Appellant applied for regular bail vide application dated

09.11.2022 before the learned Special Court. 21. Vide the Impugned Order dated 03.12.2022, the said bail application was dismissed by the learned ASJ. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court praying that the Impugned Order be set aside and the Appellant be granted regular bail in the registered NIA case. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 22. The learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Tara Narula, adverting to one of the allegations of the Prosecution against the Appellant that the Appellant, on the directions of the involved Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 proscribed terrorist organizations, has conspired with the members of the Hurriyat Conference in order to create unrest in the Kashmir Valley through various unlawful activities, submitted that, if the statements of Protected Witnesses, Alpha, Gamma, John, Jack, Pi, Golf, D-284 are to be believed, then these Witnesses were themselves a part of the meetings and discussions where the conspiracy is alleged to be hatched, and therefore, these Witnesses had similar or even a graver role than the Appellant. She submitted that, therefore, these statements should be read as „confessions‟, and the said statements are required to be corroborated by evidence. Also, the statements of these Witnesses could not have been recorded without pardoning them first. 23. Further, it was contended that the only evidence that the NIA has, except for these statements, is the CDR to show linkage of the Appellant with the co-accused persons and none of these phone calls alone have been alleged to be incriminating by the Prosecution, therefore, it cannot be construed that the Appellant was a part of the larger conspiracy. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been brought forth in order to implicate the money transactions of the Appellant with any other Hurriyat leader or any member of a proscribed terrorist organization. She submitted that though the Appellant was associated with APHC and the JKNF, however, JKNF was declared as an unlawful association only in 2024, which is six years post the Appellant‟s arrest. Moreover, the Prosecution has failed to show that the association of the Appellant with these banned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 organisations was in support of their terrorist and secessionist activities. 24. The learned counsel submitted that the NIA has, relying upon a video downloaded from an open source, i.e. YouTube, alleged that the Appellant attended the pro-ISIS rally and visited the areas of Kashmir where three terrorists were killed at Budgam, Srinagar, and more specifically, where the alleged ISIS flag was shown and slogans in that regard were raised. However, the images shown by the Prosecution are of „islamic flags‟ instead, which are commonly used, not just in Kashmir but in other parts of India, as well. She submitted that the same has been wilfully and negligently misidentified as the „ISIS Flag‟, in order for the Prosecution to wrongly implicate and rope in the Appellant as having attended a rally supporting ISIS. Moreover, the NIA has relied upon the transcript on record i.e. Document D127 which contains the contents of the reporting by the TV News Channel, however, no independent investigation with respect to the said allegation has been conducted by the agency. 25. As far as the alleged chanting of slogans are concerned, learned counsel submitted that the video relied upon is inaudible and the transcript records the same to this extent and thus, the Prosecution has not been able to show that the chants were made by the crowd or the Appellant for Zakir Musa or for ISIS. Moreover, the claim of the Prosecution that the Appellant attended a pro-ISIS rally where the terrorists were killed, however, to what effect, the same has not been ascertained, no justification as to how this conclusion has been derived Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 by the Prosecution that the same was a pro-ISIS rally has not been discerned. 26. It was contended that another video relied upon by the NIA that is also transcribed in D-127 document, is a press conference by the Appellant, same being available in the public domain, however, no FIR was registered in Kashmir or in any other place with respect to the same. Moreover, the said conference can, at best, be construed to be an opinion of the Appellant with respect to Kashmir conflict and would not tantamount to any terror or criminal activity by the Appellant. 27. The learned counsel submitted that the Prosecution has also relied upon D-7(a) which consists of two letters on the letter head of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen dated 10.03.2006 and 17.03.2006 and recovery of 21 blank letter heads of LeT, allegedly seized from the Appellant, to build a case against the Appellant. It was submitted that the letters are dated 11 years before the registration of the present case and moreover, in between 2006-2017, no FIR had been registered against the Appellant on the allegation of funding provided to any of the proscribed terrorist organization. A mere recovery of the same do not tantamount to any criminal offence, let alone anything amounting to „unlawful activity‟ or a „terrorist act‟ under the UA(P) Act, specifically where the Prosecution has miserably failed to bring forth any material evidence to show direct involvement of the Appellant with the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen or any banned organisation in the Kashmir Valley. Moreover, the letter heads allegedly recovered from Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 the Appellant, how they came into existence and printed, were not at all investigated by the NIA. 28. The learned counsel further submitted that as far as the allegation of the Prosecution that the Appellant had been endorsing / recommending Students for admissions into Medical Colleges in Pakistan is concerned, there is nothing unlawful about this act as the Appellant had only recommended the young and bright Students to pursue the field of medicine which was a part of confidence building measure that commenced in 2002 and was in alignment with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) agreement on Student Exchange with an active support from the Government of India. Moreover, it was contended that the recommendations made by the Appellant to the Students from the families who were involved in Kashmir movement or freedom movement, does not in any manner amount to a terrorist act, thus, as such, this allegation of the Prosecution falls flat on its face and holds no water. 29. Turning to the next allegation that is with regard to the unedited version of the Audio / Video furnished by India Today of the Sting Operation so conducted, wherein the Appellant, allegedly, is said to have admitted to certain receipt of funds from Pakistan and other individuals / terrorists, it was submitted that the Prosecution has placed reliance on the document D-70, which is the transcripts of the said Sting Operation, however, a bare perusal of the same would make it evident that the NIA has concealed to certain portions of it, redaction by upto 1 hour of transcript, which are exculpatory in nature Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 or which present the background of the conversation between the reporter and the Appellant. The raw footage, when perused, would show that the Sting Operation, was in fact, a case of entrapment by the reporters who enticed the Appellant by offering funds to use and establish his own faction as is evident from the statements of X-4 and X-5. These statements, she submitted, are all prospective and it is not the case that the Appellant has caused unrest, the same does not even qualify as an Extra-Judicial confession. 30. The learned counsel submitted that the Prosecution has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence showing that the Appellant has received any of the funds from Pakistan. Moreover, two out of the three persons, namely S.A.S. Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, against whom the Appellant has allegedly stated to be receiving terror funds from, were neither arrested nor were made accused nor Charge- sheeted in the present case and only Yasin Malik has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced by the learned ASJ vide Order dated

25.05.2022. She submitted that the reporter / individual conducting the so-called Sting Operation is himself in the commission of a crime as he is seen offering funds purportedly to create unrest. 31. It was further contended that the Sting was recorded using an Apple iPhone 4 mobile device and was crafted into a TV New Channel programme which is in contravention of the Codes of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards as well as guidelines of this Court in Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State 2007:DHC:8887-DB, on which count, the Sting Operation is inadmissible and cannot be considered Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 while making a prima facie opinion on the Appellant‟s case for grant of bail. Moreover, in light of the dictum in the aforesaid, the case of the Appellant falls under inducement given to a person to commit an offence which otherwise would not have been likely committed. All in all, the learned counsel submitted, the Sting Operation shows no overt act done on the part of Appellant especially in absence of any material to corroborate the allegations against the Appellant vis a vis the Sting Operation. The value of this evidence, can be at the maximum be considered to be a corroborative piece of evidence and not a substantive evidence, reliance to this effect was placed on Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (2022) 6 SCR 1. 32. It was also contended that the bank account records will make it evident that the Appellant had no history whatsoever with any of the transaction with Pakistan or any member of the banned terrorist organizations in respect of the agitations and protests in Kashmir. In view of the matter, the learned ASJ declined to take cognizance against the Appellant vide Order dated 06.02.2021 in a PMLA complaint against the accused persons in the present case on account of lack of sufficient material implicating them, including the Appellant. 33. On the point of law, the learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court in Vernon vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2023) INSC 655; (2023) SCC Online 885) has interpreted the applicability of Section 43-D(5) to be only towards offences under Chapter IV and VI of the UA(P) Act for grant of bail to an accused. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023

34. She further submitted that it is settled law that the threshold consideration of question of framing of Charge is different from consideration of application for bail, since the Fundamental Right of an accused to Liberty is at stake. For consideration of bail under UA(P) Act, the learned counsel placed reliance on Thwaha Fasal Vs. Union of India, (2021) SCC OnLine 1000. Moreover, it was submitted that mere framing of Charges would not be an impediment in granting of bail to an accused, even where offences alleged fall under Chapter IV and VI of the UA(P) Act, and the Court can very well consider the bail application of an accused. Moreso, she submitted that the proviso to Section 43D (5) merely provides another possible ground to refuse bail. Reliance in support of these contentions were placed on NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandeep Singh Vs. NIA (CRA-D 148/2023, decided on 06.09.2023) as well as decision of this Court in Ammar Abdul Rahiman Vs. National Investigation Agency 2024:DHC:3637. 35. It was submitted that the Appellant was willing to admit to certain documents, however, due to non-concurrence of the co- accused, the same could not have been achieved. The burden, she submitted, is on the Prosecution to prove their case and all the documents have been filed by them, therefore, the burden to admit or deny documents collected by them does not fall on the Appellant. 36. In this background, the learned counsel contended that the learned ASJ erroneously rejected to grant bail to the Appellant on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 premise that the framing of Charge in itself is indicative of existence of reasonable grounds to believe the allegations against the Appellant to be prima facie true. She submitted that the learned ASJ wrongly re- appreciated the material already considered at the stage of framing of Charges while denying him bail. Therefore, the prima facie test contained in the said proviso will not be satisfied unless there is at least surface-analysis of the probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail. 37. The learned counsel submitted that in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Respondent/accused had undergone incarceration of nearly 5 years and trial was yet to commence. The NIA had proposed to examine 276 Witnesses and to complete the trial within 1 year. It was held that once it was clear that the trial will not be concluded in near future, the Courts would ordinarily consider to enlarge the accused on bail, keeping in view the right of an undertrial to a speedy trial. 38. It was further contended that the Supreme Court in Vernon (supra), relying on K.A. Najeeb (supra), held that merely because the allegations levelled against an accused are serious would not be a sole ground to deny bail, and thus, it granted bail to the Appellants therein who were incarcerated for over 5 years and on the basis of prima facie view, did not justify their continued detention. She contended that in Vernon (supra), it was also observed that mere possession / holding of literature propagating violence and promoting the overthrowing of elected government through armed struggle, is not an offence and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023 would not in itself attract provisions under Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. 39. The learned counsel, strenuously arguing on the delay, submitted that the Appellant has been under incarceration since

24.07.2017, which is more than 7 years as on date and is currently aged 59 years, suffering from various health ailments such as hyperuricaemia and rheumatoid arthritis. She further submitted that it is important to note that the Appellant had joined the investigation on 5 occasions pre-arrest. The evidence of Prosecution had started only on 02.11.2022 and the Prosecution intends to examine 340 Witnesses and out of which, only 20-21 have been examined so far, and 228 Witnesses remain to be examined. The Charges were framed after 5 years in 2022 and moreso, only 6 Witnesses have been examined by the NIA in the past 1 year, as well as the fact that the board of the learned ASJ is also overburdened as is evident from the letter submitted by the NIA Court before the Supreme Court, thus, there seems no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, no overt act of terrorism or of sedition or even of conspiracy has been shown. 40. It was contended that the Prosecution has deliberately made the present case excessively voluminous and there being hours of digital data, the Prosecution can very well curtail the prolonged trial if they drop some of the Prosecution Witnesses and documents relied upon by them. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:58:34 CRL.A. 118/2023

41. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322, prayed that the Appellant be granted regular bail in the present NIA case in light of the prevailing circumstances enumerated above. 42. In addition to the aforementioned, learned counsel, in support of her contentions, also relied upon the following decisions: