TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Denied: Sufficient Evidence Justifies Continued Detention of Petitioner Under Explosive Substances Act & UAPA.</h1> <h3>MAZHAR KHAN Versus N.I.A. NEW DELHI.</h3> MAZHAR KHAN Versus N.I.A. NEW DELHI. - TMI Issues Involved: The judgment involves the consideration of bail for the petitioner who is an accused in a case involving sections of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The primary issue revolves around the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act in determining the bail eligibility of the petitioner.Details of the Judgment:1. The petitioner, accused in a case under Explosive Substances Act and UAPA Act, sought bail after its rejection by the High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the co-accused's statements, which are the primary basis for implicating the petitioner, are inadmissible in law, thus justifying bail consideration despite the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act.2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the absence of SUFA in the list of banned Terrorist Organizations under the UAPA Act weakens the connection between the accused and the alleged crime. Referring to specific sections of the UAPA Act, the counsel emphasized that mere association with such organizations does not establish guilt.3. Citing precedent (State Vs. Nalini and Ors.), the petitioner's counsel argued that statements made by co-accused to the police may be relevant to them but not necessarily to the accused. Additionally, it was highlighted that no overt or covert act of terrorism was attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution.4. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General opposed bail, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and close association with individuals covered under the UAPA Act. Referring to Section 43D(5), the ASG argued that unless the accusations against the petitioner are prima facie untrue, the burden lies on the accused to meet the threshold limit for bail consideration.5. The Court, considering the legal provisions and precedents, including the examination of Section 43D(5) proviso in previous cases, concluded that bail was not warranted in the present matter. The decision was based on the assessment of the materials, chargesheet, and the accused's criminal history in a similar case.6. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
