Prima facie true accusation under UAPA's bail bar justified refusal of bail on the material collected against the accused.

Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act bars bail where, on the case diary or Section 173 CrPC report, the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. Applying that standard, the High Court noted prima facie material against the accused, including prior UAPA involvement, co-accused disclosure statements referring to his presence in meetings, recovery of mobile phones linked to co-accused, and information said to be furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On that material, the statutory embargo operated and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in view of the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 despite the material collected against him.

Analysis: The bail claim was examined against the proviso to Section 43D(5), which prohibits release on bail where the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. The record was found to contain prima facie material including prior involvement in an offence under the UAPA, disclosure statements of co-accused referring to the appellant's presence in meetings, recovery of mobile phones with connectivity to co-accused, and information allegedly furnished under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The statutory embargo applied and the appellant was not entitled to bail.

---