TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants, accused in a terrorism-related case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were entitled to bail in the face of the statutory restriction under Section 43-D(5), and whether the material on record disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against them was prima facie true.
Analysis: The bail court must not equate the mere taking of cognizance with a finding that the accusation is prima facie true. Under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Court must form an opinion on the basis of the case diary or charge-sheet that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, and that exercise must be careful, limited to the bail stage, and not prejudicial to trial. The material relied upon by the prosecution did not disclose direct evidence of the appellants' participation in planting or exploding the bomb, and the allegations were largely inferential and unsupported by the required evidentiary chain. The Court therefore held that the statutory bar to bail was not attracted on the facts as they stood.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to bail, and the order refusing bail was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For bail under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Court must independently assess whether the prosecution material discloses reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true, and bail cannot be denied merely because cognizance has been taken or because allegations are grave.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
