TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the embargo under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 applied to the alleged offences and whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation under Sections 38 and 39 was prima facie true; (ii) Whether the material in the charge sheet disclosed the requisite intention to further the activities of the terrorist organisation so as to justify denial of bail.
Issue (i): Whether the embargo under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 applied to the alleged offences and whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation under Sections 38 and 39 was prima facie true.
Analysis: The stringent restriction in Section 43D(5) applies only to offences under Chapters IV and VI. Section 13, being in Chapter III, is outside that embargo. Section 20 was not supported by sanction and, therefore, could not be treated as a live basis for applying the special bail restriction. While considering bail under Section 43D(5), the Court is required to see whether the charge-sheet material shows reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true, without conducting a mini trial. The standard is lighter than discharge or framing of charge, but the Court must still test the material as it stands.
Conclusion: The embargo under Section 43D(5) governed only the alleged offences under Sections 38 and 39, and the question had to be decided on the prima facie truth of those accusations.
Issue (ii): Whether the material in the charge sheet disclosed the requisite intention to further the activities of the terrorist organisation so as to justify denial of bail.
Analysis: Mere possession of literature, documents, banners, or digital material concerning a proscribed organisation, or mere association with its members, was not enough to attract Sections 38 and 39. Those provisions require association or support with the intention to further the activities of the terrorist organisation. On the materials placed in the charge sheet, the Court found no sufficient overt acts, active participation, or other prima facie material showing the required intention. The absence of sanction for Section 20, the limited nature of the alleged role, the long period of custody, the absence of breach of earlier bail conditions, and the likely delay in trial also supported release on bail.
Conclusion: The accusation under Sections 38 and 39 was not shown to be prima facie true, and bail was justified.
Final Conclusion: The order cancelling bail to the second accused was set aside and his bail was restored, while the State's challenge to the first accused's bail was rejected. The decision turns on the requirement of prima facie truth under the special bail provision and the necessity of proving intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation.
Ratio Decidendi: For offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, bail can be denied under Section 43D(5) only when the charge-sheet material, taken as it stands, provides reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true and discloses the requisite intention to further the activities of the terrorist organisation; mere association or possession of related material is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
