that the High Court has misdirected itself in granting bail to an accused convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive 12 (1997) 6 SCC 1. 13 See Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (Election Commission Appointments), (2023) 6 SCC 161, quoting from S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 126. 14 AIR 1966 SC 657. 15 (1990) 1 SCC 397. Crl. Appeal a/o SLP (Crl.) No. 5154 of 2024 Page 6 of 8Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, by refusing to look into statements and further material collected by the investigating agency. 17. We would reject the argument that the reasoning recorded by us in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14, results in grant of privilege or special status to politicians. As observed in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14, several peculiarities of the case have weighed with us. In Siba Shankar Das @ Pintu v. State of Odisha and Another16, this Court accepting the appeal, deleted the condition imposed by the High Court stipulating that the appellant shall not be involved in any