1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Charges have been framed against the accused appellant under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, amended 2008 and Sections 387, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Undoubtedly, the charges are serious but the seriousness of the charges will have to be balanced with certain other facts like the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed.

3. The accused appellant has been in custody since April, 2011 i.e. for over five years. The trial is yet to commence inasmuch as the learned State Counsel has submitted that the 9th of May, 2016 is the first date fixed for the trial. There are over 200 witnesses proposed to be examined. The accused appellant is a lady. She has also been acquitted of similar charges leveled against her in other cases. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts we are of the view that the accused appellant should be admitted to bail. We accordingly direct that the accused appellant Angela Harish Sontakke be released on bail by the learned trial Court in connection with Sessions Case No.655 of 2011 arising out of CR No.19/11, PS, ATS Kalachowki, Mumbai. 

We also make it clear that the learned trial Court will consider and impose appropriate conditions subject to which the accused appellant will be released on bail in terms of the present order so as to ensure that the accused appellant is available for trial. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor would be at liberty to address the learned trial Court so far as the conditions subject to which the accused appellant will be allowed to go on bail in terms of the present order.

4. Consequently and in the light of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High court.