/2023 INSC 0291/
1
NON­REPORTABLE 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1153  OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10160 of 2021)
Yedala Subba Rao & Anr.              …Appellants
versus
Union of India              ...Respondent
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J .
1. Leave granted.  
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The appellants are accused nos.46 and 47 in FIR No. 65 of 2018
registered   on   23 rd
  September   2018   at   Dumbriguda   Police   Station,
District   Vishakhapatnam,   in   Andhra   Pradesh.   The   appellants,   along
with   other   co­accused,   are   being   prosecuted   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Section   120B   read   with   Section   302   of   the   Indian
Penal   Code,   Sections   18,   19,   20   and   39   of   the   Unlawful   Activities

2
(Prevention)  Act, 1967 (for  short  ‘the  UAPA’).   The appellants are also
charged   with   offences   punishable   under   Sections   4   and   5   of   the
Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Explosives Act’).
3. The   incident   is   of   23 rd
  September   2018.     At   about   12:10   hours,
Shri Kidari Sarveswara Rao, a member of the Legislative Assembly and
whip of the Telugu Desam Party in Legislative Assembly and one Shri
Siveri   Soma,   a   former   MLA   belonging   to   Telugu   Desam   Party,   were
killed   near   the   village   Livitiputtu,   Pothangi   Panchayat   within   the
jurisdiction   of   Dumbriguda   Police   Station   at   Visakhapatnam.     This
incident took place when both of them were proceeding to village Sarai
to   attend   a   function.   The   allegation   is   that   45   accused   persons   who
belonged   to   the   Communist   Party   of   India   (Maoist),   a   terrorist
organisation   notified   in   the   first   schedule   of   the   UAPA,   stopped   the
convoy of vehicles of the aforesaid two leaders. The accused compelled
them   to   get   out   of   their   cars.     Both   of   them   were   taken   towards   Y­
Junction.     Thereafter,   the   MLA   was   taken   to   the   left­hand   side   of   Y­
Junction   and   the   Ex­MLA   was   taken   to   the   right­hand   side   of   Y­
Junction.   Both of them were killed by three gunshots.   The Personal
Secretary   of the  deceased sitting   MLA lodged FIR on the same day  in
which he named 45 accused.  Earlier, investigation was carried out by
a   Special   Investigation   Team,   which   was   subsequently   transferred   to

3
the   National   Investigation   Agency   (NIA).   The   case   was   registered   by
NIA   as   RC­02/2018   NIA/HYD   on   6 th
  December   2018.   The   appellants
were  arrested  on  13 th
  October   2018.   A  chargesheet  was  filed  against
them   on   10 th
  April   2019.     It   appears   from   the   said   chargesheet   that
there   are   79   accused   though   initially   there   were   85   accused.   About
144   witnesses   have   been   named   in   the   charge   sheet   so   far.     The
charge has not yet been framed.  Some of the accused are absconding.
The appellants have been in custody for the last four years and seven
months. 
SUBMISSIONS
4. Shri   Colin   Gonsalves,   the   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the   appellants,   has   taken   us   through   the   relevant   portions   of   the
charge sheet filed against the present appellants.  He pointed out that
the   recovery   of   landmine   is   shown   at   the   instance   of   appellant   no.1­
accused   no.46,   which   on   the   face   of   it,   is   highly   suspicious.     He
pointed   out   that   there   is   no   recovery   shown   at   the   instance   of   the
accused   no.47.     He   pointed   out   that   the   second   allegation   against
accused no.46 is that the call details record of accused nos.46, 47 and
84 show that they were always in touch with each other which shows
that   they   were   partners   in   the   criminal   conspiracy.     He   pointed   out
that   accused   no.84   has   been   granted   bail   by   the   High   Court.   He

4
pointed   out   that   another   allegation   against   accused   no.46   is   that   he
purchased huge quantity of medicines worth Rs.8,000/­ which were to
be handed over to a Maoist sent by accused no.84.  He submitted that
there   is   no   material   against   both   the   accused   to   show   that   they
provided   shelter   and   logistic   support   to   the   Maoists   as   well   as   co­
accused and that they  planted landmines.   He pointed out that there
is no evidence to show that the alleged landmines had any connection
with   the   offence   of   killing   the   aforesaid   two   leaders.   He   would,
therefore,   submit   that   there   is   no   prima   facie   evidence   of   the
involvement   of   the   two   appellants   in   the   offence.     He   relied   upon   a
decision of this Court in the case of   Union of India v.  K.A. Najeeb 1
.
He   submitted   that   even   charges   have   not   been   framed.     Some   of   the
accused   are   absconding.     Considering   the   fact   that   there   are   144
prosecution   witnesses,   the   trial   is   going   to   take   years   and   therefore,
continuing incarceration of the appellants will amount to a violation of
their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
5. Shri   K.M.   Nataraj,   learned   ASG   appearing   for   the   respondent,
pointed out the Memorandum dated 13 th
  October 2018 under Section
27   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872   (for   short   ‘the   Evidence   Act’),
which   shows  that   a   steel   can   weighing   about  10   kg   containing  bolts,
nuts   and   filled   with   explosive   material   and   connected   to   a   detonator
1   (2021) 3 SCC 713

5
through a wire was recovered at the instance of accused no.46 near a
kaccha   road   near   village   Sarai   where   the   deceased   political   leaders
were to visit.  He also pointed out that the landmine was planted with
the   object   of   killing   the   said   two   leaders.     He   pointed   out   that   the
disclosure   statement   made   by   accused   no.46   on   16 th
  January   2019
shows   that   he   purchased   a   huge   quantity   of   medicines   worth
Rs.8,000/­ and handed them over to a Maoist. He pointed out that the
appellants­accused used different SIMs standing in the names of third
parties   to   remain   in   touch   with   the   co­accused.   As   regards   accused
no.   47,   he   submitted   that   the   disclosure   statement   of   13 th
  October
2018   records   that   both   the   appellants   dug   a   pit   near   a   kaccha   road
leading   to   Sarai   village   and   planted   a   landmine   therein.   He   also
pointed out that the accused nos.46 and 47 were constantly in touch
with   each   other   on   cell   phones   for   18   days   prior   to   the   incident   and
thereafter,   the   cell   phone   of   accused   no.47   was   switched   off.     Shri
Nataraj further urged that both accused nos.46 and 47 are involved in
the   offence   and   there   is   a   strong   prima   facie   material   against   them.
He, therefore, submitted that in view of the proviso to sub­section (5)
of Section 43D of UAPA, the appellants are disentitled to bail as there
is   material   on   record   to   believe   that   the   accusations   against   the
appellants are  prima facie  true.  

6
OUR VIEW
6. We   have   given   careful   consideration   to   the   submissions.     We
have   perused   the   material   against   the   appellants   in   the   context   of
stringent   provisions   for   the   grant   of   bail   incorporated   under   the
proviso   to  sub­section   (5)  of   Section   43D  of   UAPA.     We  have   perused
the   chargesheet   filed   against   the   appellants.     The   allegation   against
the   first   appellant­accused   no.46   is   that   he   provided   shelter   and
logistic   support   to   Maoists   and   co­accused   for   facilitating   the   offence
of murder of the two leaders.  The second allegation is that the present
appellants   planted   landmines   near   the   village   where   the   programme
was   to   be   held.     It   is   further   alleged   that   appellant   no.1   ­   accused
no.46 was in constant touch with accused no.84, who in turn was in
touch   with   the   Maoists.     It   is   further   alleged   that   the   cell   phone   call
record   shows   that   the   appellants   were   in   touch   with   each   other
immediately   after   the   incident.   The   accused   no.46   purchased   huge
quantity  of  medicines  and  handed  over  the  same  to  a  Maoist  sent  by
accused no.84.  
7. The   allegation   against   accused   no.47   is   that   he   had   association
with accused no.46.  He was found in possession of certain pamphlets
and   literature   of   the   terrorist   organisation   –   CPI   (Maoist).     Another
allegation is that accused no.47 had given shelter to Communist party
workers.

7
8. One   of   the   allegations   in   the   chargesheet   is   that   the   present
appellants were in touch with each other for about 17­18 days before
the   incident.     Moreover,   they   were   regularly   conversing   with   accused
no.84,   who   in   turn   was   communicating   with   the   workers   of   the   CPI
(Maoist) Party.  
9. We   may   note   here   that   by   the   judgment   and   order   dated   15 th
December   2020   passed   by   a   Division   Bench   of   Andhra   Pradesh   High
Court in Crl. Appeal No.229 of 2020, accused no.84 has been granted
bail.  We have perused the judgment, which is produced along with IA
No.21015   of   2022.     In   the   said   judgment,   the   High   Court   has
considered   the   CDR   records   of   the   telephonic   conversation   between
accused   no.46   and   accused   no.84.     In   paragraph   9,   the   High   Court
observed that accused no.46 was an Ex­Sarpanch of the village where
accused  no.84   was  teaching   in   a  government   school   and  therefore,  it
was   natural   that   being   an   Ex­Sarpanch,   people   were   constantly
approaching   him.     The   calls   were   exchanged   between   these   two
accused   on   the   date   of   the   offence   and   after   the   offence.     The   High
Court observed that when an offence of such a nature happened in the
vicinity,   it   is   not   unusual   that   accused   no.46,   who   was   an   Ex­
Sarpanch,   would   receive   calls   from   many   persons   immediately   after
the commission of the offence.   The High Court further observed that

8
there   was   an   allegation   that   medicines   worth   Rs.8,000/­   were
purchased   at   the   instance   of   the   accused   no.84   which   were   handed
over   at   his   instance   to   one   Kiran,   who   was   also   a   Maoist.     The   High
Court observed that in the chargesheet filed against accused no.46, it
was   noted   that   the   said   Kiran   was   arrested   on   18 th
  September   2018
and   was   in   custody   on   the   date   of   the   offence.   Therefore,   the   High
Court   opined   that   accused   no.84   was   prima   facie   not   involved   in   the
offence and, at the highest, was guilty of an offence punishable under
Section 202 of IPC. 
10. The   grant   of   bail   by   the   High   Court   to   accused   no.84   is   very
relevant   in   this   case   as   in   paragraph   17.19   of   the   chargesheet   filed
against the present appellants, the allegation is that call detail records
of   accused   nos.46,47   and   84   show   that   they   were   exchanging   calls
which indicates that they are the parties to the conspiracy.
11. As   regards   the   allegation   of   purchase   of   medicines   worth
Rs.8,000/­   by   accused   no.46,   the   prosecution   has   relied   upon   a
Disclosure Memo dated 16 th
  January  2019.   In the  Disclosure Memo,
it   is   alleged   that   accused   no.46   disclosed   that   one   Kiran   approached
him   in July  2018 to  help him   to  purchase  medicines.   Thereafter,  he
received a call from accused no.84, who informed him that one person
will   give   him   a   list   of   medicines   and   cash   of   Rs.10,000/­   and   he

9
should   help   him   to   purchase   medicines.     The   disclosure   statement
records that accused no.46 helped that person to purchase medicines
from   a   medical   shop   and   he   led   the   police   party   to   the   said   medical
shop.     In   the   disclosure   statement,   he   also   stated   that   on   23 rd
September 2018, he saw accused no.47 along with one person (Kiran)
at a Xerox shop at Dumbriguda Junction.   Accused no.46 stated that
he will be able to show the said shop, and accordingly, he showed the
said shop.  
12. We   fail   to   understand   how   the   purchase   of   medicines   worth
Rs.8,000/­   by   accused   no.46   at   the   instance   of   accused   no.84   much
before   the   incident   has   any   connection   with   the   incident   which   took
place on 23 rd
 September 2018. This is apart from the fact that accused
no.84 has been granted bail by the High Court.
13. Now   we   will   have   to   decide   whether   the   disclosure   statement
dated 16 th
  January 2019 is admissible in evidence.   It is necessary to
advert to the law laid down by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this
Court   in   the   case   of   Jaffar   Hussain   Dastagir   v.   State   of
Maharashtra 2
.    This Court followed a decision of the Privy Council in
the   case   of   Pulukuri   Kottaya   v.   King   Emperor 3
  which   is   a   locus
classicus .  In paragraph no.5 of the decision in the case of  Jaffar , this
2   (1969) 2 SCC 872
3   (1946) SCC online Privy Council 47

10
Court held thus: 
“5.   Under   Section   25   of   the   Evidence   Act   no
confession made by an accused to a police officer can
be   admitted   in   evidence   against   him.   An   exception   to
this is however provided by Section 26 which makes a
confessional   statement   made   before   a   Magistrate
admissible   in   evidence   against   an   accused
notwithstanding the fact that he was in the custody of
the police when he made the incriminating statement.
Section   27   is   a   proviso   to   Section   26   and   makes
admissible   so   much   of   the   statement   of   the   accused
which   leads   to   the   discovery   of   a   fact   deposed   to   by
him   and  connected   with  the   crime,   irrespective   of   the
question   whether   it   is   confessional   or   otherwise.   The
essential   ingredient   of   the   section   is   that   the
information given by the accused must lead to the
discovery   of   the   fact   which   is   the   direct   outcome
of   such   information.   Secondly,   only   such   portion
of the information given as is distinctly connected
with   the   said   recovery   is   admissible   against   the
accused.   Thirdly,   the   discovery   of   the   fact   must
relate   to   the   commission   of   some   offence.   The
embargo   on   statements   of   the   accused   before   the
police will not apply if all the above conditions are
fulfilled.   If   an   accused   charged   with   a   theft   of
articles   or   receiving   stolen   articles,   within   the
meaning of Section 411 IPC states to the police, “I
will show you the articles at the place where I have
kept   them”   and   the   articles   are   actually   found
there,   there   can   be   no   doubt   that   the   information
given   by   him   led   to   the   discovery   of   a   fact   i.e.
keeping of the articles by the accused at the place
mentioned. The discovery of the fact deposed to in
such a case is not the discovery of the articles but
the   discovery   of   the   fact   that   the   articles   were
kept   by   the   accused   at   a   particular   place.   In
principle   there   is   no   difference   between   the   above
statement and that made by the appellant in this case
which   in   effect   is   that   “I   will   show   you   the   person   to

11
whom   I   have   given   the   diamonds   exceeding   200   in
number”.   The   only   difference   between   the   two
statements is that a “named person” is substituted for
“the   place”   where   the   article   is   kept.   In   neither   case
are the articles or the diamonds the fact discovered.”
                  (emphasis added)
14. As   held   by   this   Court,   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act   is   an
exception to the general rule under Section 25 that a confession made
by   an   accused   to   a   police   officer   is   not   admissible   in   evidence.     The
first condition for the applicability of Section 27 is that the information
given  by   the   accused   must   lead  to   the   discovery   of  the   fact,  which   is
the   direct   outcome   of   such   information.     Only   such   portion   of   the
information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is
admissible  against  the  accused.   Now  looking  at  the  Discovery  Memo
dated 16 th
  January 2019, at the highest, it means that accused no.46
showed the shop from which the medicines were purchased.  Thus, he
led   the   police   to   the   shop.     There   was   no   discovery   of   any   fact   as   a
result of the information supplied by accused no.46.   The same is the
case   with   the   other   allegation   that   accused   no.46   showed   a   Xerox
shop   where   accused   no.47   and   one   Kiran   were   allegedly   standing   on
23 rd
 September 2018.  Therefore, the statements of accused no.46 that
he   would   show   the   medical   shop   and   the   Xerox   shop   may   not   be,
prima   facie ,   admissible   under   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act.
Moreover,   as   noted   in   the   order   of   the   High   Court   granting   bail   to

12
accused   no.84,   the   said   Kiran,   who   was   allegedly   standing   with
accused   no.47   near   the   Xerox   shop   on   23 rd
  September   2018   was
already in custody from 18 th
  September 2018 and he continued to be
in custody even on 23 rd
 September 2018.  
15. There is one more crucial aspect. A statement of one G.Narasinga
Rao,   who   was   allegedly   running   the   said   medical   shop   has   been
recorded during the investigation. In the statement, he has stated that
on   16 th
  January   2019,   NIA   team   visited   his   shop   and   inquired   about
the   sale   of   medicines   involving   a   large   amount   in   July   2018   and   the
team brought accused no.46 with them. This shows that the NIA team
was   already   aware   of   the   location   of   the   shop   from   which   a   large
quantity   of   medicines   was   allegedly   purchased   by   accused   no.46   in
July 2018.
16. Now, we come to the material to show that there was a recovery
of landmine at the instance of accused no.46.   It must be noted here
that it is not the case of the prosecution that the recovery of landmine
was   at   the   instance   of   the   accused   no.47.   The   recovery   Panchama
(Annexure A­1) to IA no. 74099 of 2022 is styled as “Mediators’ Report
and   Seizure   Panchnama”.     It   records   that   at   about   4   pm   on   13 th
October   2018,   the   mediators   were   present   at   Livitiputtu   village   with
ASP   Amitabh   for   preparing   the   Mediators’   Report   and   Seizure
Panchanama.   It is recorded in the Panchnama that ASP Amitabh, an

13
IPS   officer,   along   with   other   9   or   10   police   officials   with   a   Bomb
Disposal Team, visited   Livitiputtu  village.   On the way,   they  saw four
persons,   including   the   accused   nos.46   and   47,   who   were   holding
plastic   bags.     When   they   tried   to   flee,   the   police   chased   them   and
caught   hold   of   them.   In   the   same   Panchnama,   a   long   statement   of
accused   no.46   is   recorded,   which   is   in   the   nature   of   a   confessional
statement. There is also a confessional statement of accused no.47 in
the   same   Panchnama.     Prima   facie,   these   statements   may   not   be
admissible   in   evidence   being   hit   by   Section   25   of   the   Evidence   Act.
Going   by   the   “Mediators’   Report   and   Seizure   Panchnama”,   the
appellants   gave   confessional   statements   immediately   after   the   police
caught hold of them even before their arrest was recorded. Therefore,
prima   facie,   it   creates   a   doubt   about   the   genuineness   of   the
statements.       The   material   portion   of   the   “Mediators’   Report   and
Seizure   Panchnama”   appears   after   the   confessional   statement   of   the
accused no. 46. It reads thus:
“ After that He himself taken us to some far kuccha
road   towards  Sarvai   village.   He   then   shown   us   the
Land   mine   plotted   along   with   the   Electrical   wire.
Thereafter   Bomb   Disposal   team   removed   bomb   in
presence   of   us   (Mediators),   ASP   Amitabh   Bardar,   IPS
and   by   examining   it   was   found   to   be   a   Steel   Can
weighing about 10 kg, containing Bolts, Nuts and filled
with Explosive  Material  and  connected to a  Detonator
through   a   hole.   A   20   m   long   red   wire   is   attached   to
operate   it.   After   that   Bomb   Disposal   Team   Defused

14
and   recorded   videos   and   took   pictures   and   Seized
Landmine,   Detonator,   Electrical   Wire.   We   Mediators
examined   the   plastic   bag   of   Yedala   Subbarao,   found
Brochures and banners along with his Karbonn mobile
and has been seized.”
[emphasis added]
17. It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   a   long   confessional   statement   of
accused no.46 has been recorded within inverted commas in the said
document, and thereafter, the aforesaid portion has been written.  It is
not   noted   in   the   confessional   statement   of   accused   no.46   that   he
stated   that   he   would   show   the   place   where   he   had   planted   the
landmine.  If accused no.46 had made such a statement leading to the
discovery of the landmine, the discovery of the fact that the landmine
was planted by accused nos.46 at a particular place could have been
proved, provided the landmine was to be used in the offence. However,
there   is   no   such   confessional   statement   of   accused   no.46   recorded
that he will show the place where landmine was planted by him.   The
Panchnama   shows   that   the   accused   no.46   took   them   to   a   place   and
showed   landmine.     There   is   no   confessional   statement   made   by   him
giving information that he is in a position to show the place where he
had  planted landmine.   Therefore,   prima facie,   “the Mediators’ Report
and   Seizure   Panchnama”   is   not   helpful   to   the   prosecution   in   proving
that   the   landmine   was   discovered   at   the   instance   of   the   accused
no.46.  

15
18. As can be seen from  the  chargesheet, in paragraph 17.32, there
were three material allegations against accused no.46.  The first was of
plantation   of   a   landmine   which   we   have   already   discussed.     The
second   one   was   that   he   provided   shelter   and   logistic   support   to   the
Maoists   for   facilitating   the   commission   of   the   offence.     The   third
circumstance   that   he   purchased   medicines   worth   Rs.8,000/­   as   per
the   suggestion   of   accused   no.84   will   also   have   to   be   kept   out   of
consideration for the reasons already recorded.   In paragraph 5 of the
additional   affidavit   of   the   respondent,   the   material   against   the
appellants has been set out in a tabular form.   In the tabular form, it
is not  mentioned  that  there are statements of  the  witnesses who  had
seen accused nos.46 or 47 giving shelter to the Maoists.   In any case,
accused no.46 and 47 were not present at the time of the commission
of   the   offence.     Therefore,   we   cannot   form   an   opinion   that   there   are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against accused
no.46 are  prima facie  proved.
19. Coming   to   allegations   against   accused   no.47,   we   may   note   here
that   his   confessional   statement   recorded   under   the   Mediators   Report
and   Seizure   Panchnama   is   not   admissible   evidence   as   he   has   not
disclosed   any   fact   that   led   to   any   discovery.     In   his   statement,   it   is
recorded   that   he   was   carrying   Maoist   literature   and   banners.     It   is

16
recorded   in   the   Panchnama   that   eight   brochures,   two   banners,   and
one   landmine,   along   with   electric   wire   and   detonators,   were   seized
from   four  persons.   It  is   not   specifically  mentioned   in   the   Panchnama
that   the   brochures   and   banners   were   recovered   from   accused   no.47.
The   prosecution   case   that   accused   no.47,   with   one   Kiran,   was   found
standing   at   a   particular   place   on   23 rd
  September  2018   appears   to   be
very   doubtful,   as   noted   by   us   earlier.     Then   what   is   against   accused
no.47   is   that   he   was   in   touch   with   accused   no.46   on   the   telephone.
The   same   was   the   allegation   against   accused   no.84,   who   has   been
enlarged on bail.
20. Sub­section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA reads thus: 
“(5)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the
Code,   no   person   accused   of   an   offence
punishable under  Chapters IV and VI of this Act
shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his
own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been
given   an   opportunity   of   being   heard   on   the
application for such release:
Provided   that   such   accused   person   shall   not
be   released   on   bail   or   on   his   own   bond   if   the
Court,   on   a   perusal   of   the   case   diary   or   the
report made under Section 173 of the Code is
of   the   opinion   that   there   are   reasonable
grounds   for   believing   that   the   accusation
against such person is prima facie true. ”
                (emphasis added)
21. We have examined material relied upon against the appellants in
paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit of the respondent as well as the

17
chargesheet.   Taking   the   material   against   the   appellants   as   it   is   and
without   considering   the   defence   of   the   appellants,   we   are   unable   to
form   an   opinion   that   there   are   reasonable   grounds   for   believing   that
the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under
the UAPA are  prime facie  true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail
under  proviso   to  sub­section  (5)  of  Section  43D will  not  apply   in  this
case.       We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   the   findings   recorded   in   this
Judgment   are   only   prima   facie   observations   recorded   for   the   limited
purposes   of   examining   the   case   in   the   light   of   the   proviso   to   s ub­
section   (5)   of   Section   43D   of   the   UAPA.   The   trial   shall   be   conducted
uninfluenced by these observations.
22. As   narrated   earlier,   the   appellants   are   in   custody   for   four   and
half   years.   The   charge   has   not   been   framed   and   the   prosecution
proposes to examine more than  140 witnesses.   Some of  the  accused
are   absconding.   Thus,   there   is   no   possibility   of   the   trial   commencing
in the near future. 
23. It   is   obvious   that   while   granting   bail,   stringent   conditions   will
have   to   be   imposed.     We   propose   to   leave   it   to   the   learned   Special
Judge to impose appropriate conditions. 
24. Accordingly,   we   set   aside   the   impugned   orders.   We   direct   the
respondent to ensure that appellants are produced before the learned
Special   Judge   for   the   trial   of   NIA   cases   at   Vijayawada   within   a

18
maximum period of one week from today.   The learned Special Judge
shall   release   the   appellants   on   bail   on   appropriate   conditions
determined by him after hearing the appellants and respondent.   The
appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 
.………………………J.
    (Abhay S. Oka)
..………..……………J.
    (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
April 17, 2023.