Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. This is the third bail application preferred by the appellant before this Court under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, "the NIA Act"), arising out of FIR No.33/2024 registered at Police Station Kanker, District Kanker, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121 and 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. The first bail application of the appellant bearing CRA No. 1722/2025 was dismissed by this Court on 04/11/2025 on merits. Subsequently, the second application too bearing CRA No. 1261/2026 was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 16/06/2026.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.02.2024, on receipt of specific intelligence information regarding the presence of members of the proscribed terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) in and around village Mujalgondi and Kanagaon, a search operation was conducted by the DRG personnel of District Kanker. During the search operation, on 05.02.2024, two persons, namely, Vinod Awalam and Ashu Korsa , were apprehended from the forest area of Mujalgondi. On their search, arms, ammunition, explosives, detonators, BGL shells and Naxal literature, along with other articles, were allegedly seized from their possession. The investigation further revealed that the said accused persons were allegedly involved in a conspiracy to launch an attack upon the police party and had been assigned the task of conducting recce of the route used by the police party. It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation the role of the present appellant, Anish Khan @ Annu Khan, surfaced. According to the prosecution, the appellant was associated with the proscribed terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) and was providing logistic support to its members, including supplying food grains and other materials and assisting in procurement of explosive materials. It is alleged that the appellant had also supplied fireworks/explosive materials, detonators, wires and other articles which were to be used by the members of the organisation. The prosecution further relies upon the statements of protected witnesses alleging the association of the appellant with armed cadres of the proscribed organisation. On completion of investigation, the NIA filed the charge- sheet against the appellant and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121 and 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was kept open.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody since 04.02.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is submitted that out of 114 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 11 witnesses have so far been examined and the witnesses examined have not stated anything incriminating against the appellant. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in their statements. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no incriminating article was seized from his possession. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and there is sufficient material collected during investigation connecting the appellant with the proscribed terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist). It is further submitted that the appellant has repeatedly approached the Courts for grant of bail and his prayer for bail has already been rejected by this Court twice on merits. He would submit that the appellant failed to demonstrate no any new circumstances for interference of this Court. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The record would show that the appellant had earlier preferred CRA No.1722 of 2025 before this Court seeking bail. The said appeal was considered on merits and dismissed vide judgment dated 04.11.2025. While dismissing the said appeal, this Court noticed the allegations that the appellant was actively involved in supporting the members of the proscribed terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist), including by helping them to procure illegal explosive materials. The statements of protected witnesses regarding the association of the appellant with the armed cadres of the proscribed organisation were also noticed. This Court, having regard to the material available on record, found prima facie material against the appellant and declined to grant bail at that stage. Subsequently, another bail application of the appellant bearing CRA No. 1261/2026 was also dismissed on merits by this Court on 16/06/2026.

8. Thereafter, the appellant again sought bail before the learned Special Judge and the said bail application came to be rejected vide order dated 06.07.2026. The appellant has now preferred the present appeal.

9. It is true that the appellant has remained in custody since 04.02.2025 and that, out of 114 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 11 witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the evidence of the witnesses already examined and has submitted that no incriminating material has emerged against the appellant. The fact that 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined after the earlier consideration of the appellant's prayer for bail, by itself, does not constitute such a substantial change in circumstance as would warrant taking a different view, particularly having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations against the appellant and the material which was noticed by this Court while considering the earlier bail application.

10. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available against the appellant, the earlier consideration of his prayer for bail on merits and the absence of any substantial change in circumstance warranting a different view, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage.

11. However, considering the fact that the appellant is in custody since 04.02.2025 and out of 114 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 11 witnesses have so far been examined, we deem it appropriate to request the learned Trial Court to make all endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the cooperation of the prosecution and the defence.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal, being the third bail application, is dismissed.

13. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the present prayer for bail and shall not prejudice the trial of the case on its merits.