Strict UAPA bail threshold under Section 43D(5) applied; bail refused because accusations were not shown prima facie false.

Bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was tested against the restrictive proviso to Section 43D(5), which permits release only where there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie not true. Applying the standard stated in Watali and reaffirmed in Vernon, the Court considered the chargesheet and the accused's criminal antecedents in a similar matter and found that the threshold for bail was not satisfied. Bail was refused and the special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail was liable to be granted in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 having regard to the restriction in Section 43D(5) and the materials collected by the prosecution.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled standard under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as explained in Watali and later reiterated in Vernon, namely that bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie not true. On the materials placed before it, including the chargesheet and the petitioner's criminal antecedents in a similar case, the Court found that the threshold for bail was not met.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie not true.

---