UAPA bail bar under section 43D(5) applies where charge-sheet material shows prima facie true terrorist-related accusations.

In a UAPA bail context, the court applied the statutory bar in section 43D(5) by examining whether the charge-sheet material disclosed prima facie true accusations under Chapters IV and VI. The investigation record, including witness statements, call transcripts and video material, was treated as sufficient at the bail stage to indicate training linked to a proscribed organisation, coordinated violent protests and disruption of public movement and supplies. The court reiterated that a meticulous appraisal of evidence is unnecessary at this stage, and rejected reliance on peaceful protest and free speech where the statutory threshold was otherwise met. Bail was refused and the prior order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in view of the bar under section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and whether the materials in the charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie case involving a terrorist act and allied offences.

Analysis: The materials collected in investigation were examined as a whole, including witness statements, call transcripts, video material and the charge-sheet. They were found to show, prima facie, that cadres had been sent for training in camps allegedly connected with a proscribed organisation, that violent protests and blockade activities were coordinated, and that essential supplies and public movement were disrupted through the use of burning tyres and other acts of violence. The Court held that at the bail stage it was not required to conduct a meticulous appraisal of evidence, but only to see whether the statutory threshold under section 43D(5) was satisfied. On that material, the Court found that the accusations under Chapter IV and Chapter VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were prima facie true, and that the constitutional plea of peaceful protest and free speech could not override the statutory bar in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to bail, and the refusal of bail by the Special Judge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution material in a UAPA case, viewed on broad probabilities, discloses reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true, section 43D(5) bars grant of bail.

---