UAPA bail restriction requires a prima facie case; extortion payments and meetings were insufficient to deny bail.

Under the UAPA bail restriction, bail may be refused only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. On the material before the SC, payment of extortion or levy money to the TPC for running a transport business did not, at this stage, establish financing of a terrorist organisation, and the appellant's meetings with organisation members were not enough by themselves to prove conspiracy. Cash recovered from the residence was also not shown prima facie to be terror funds or proceeds of terrorism. The refusal of bail was therefore unsustainable, and bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail was liable to be refused under the special bail restriction applicable to UAPA offences on the basis that the material disclosed a prima facie case of terror funding, criminal conspiracy, or proceeds of terrorism.

Analysis: The governing test under the bail restriction is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. On the material placed before the Court, the principal allegation was that the appellant had paid levy or extortion money to the TPC for running his transport business. The material did not show, at this stage, that payment of extortion money amounted to financing or raising funds for the terrorist organization. The appellant's meetings with members of the organization were explained as being connected with the demands made upon him, and those meetings alone were insufficient to establish conspiracy. The cash recovered from his residence was accounted for by him, and it was not shown prima facie to be terror funds or proceeds of terrorist activity.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out for denial of bail; the order refusing bail was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to release on bail.

---