Bail cancellation under anti-terror law failed where prima facie satisfaction and perversity threshold were not met.

Cancellation of bail under the anti-terror law was found unsustainable because the statutory bar required the court to hear the prosecution and be satisfied that the accusation was prima facie true. In assessing alleged conduct under the relevant provisions, the inquiry centred on whether the acts were done with the intention of furthering a terrorist organisation. The materials relied on by the prosecution did not make the trial court's distinction between voluntary funding and payment under threat unreasonable, and the finding that the accused were not shown to be voluntary contributors or sympathisers, while cooperating with investigation, was not demonstrated to be perverse or impossible. Interference with the grant of bail was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was justified, and whether the trial court's view on the prima facie case was perverse or impossible so as to warrant appellate interference.

Analysis: The statutory bar under Section 43D(5) requires the prosecution to be heard and the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. In considering offences under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act, the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged acts were done with the intention of furthering the activities of a terrorist organisation. The material relied upon by the prosecution, including the charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet, and forensic report, did not render the trial court's distinction between persons who voluntarily fund outlawed organisations and those who are compelled to pay under threat as unreasonable. The trial court's view that the appellants were not shown to be voluntary contributors or sympathisers, and that they were cooperating with the investigation, was not shown to be perverse or impossible.

Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was not sustainable, and interference with the trial court's grant of bail was unwarranted.

---