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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether bail could be granted to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in view of the statutory bar under Section 43D(5), and whether the material on record disclosed prima facie involvement in offences under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of that Act.
Analysis: The governing bail provision under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 requires the Court to first examine whether the accusation is prima facie true on the basis of the case diary and the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If that threshold is met, the general principles governing bail do not override the statutory restriction. The material considered included repeated communication with a co-accused, disclosure statements placing the accused in a journey to Srinagar for procurement of a weapon, and the alleged role of the accused in furthering a preparatory act linked with terrorist activity. The Court also held that mere delay in trial, in the context of grave UAPA allegations and ongoing examination of witnesses, was not enough to displace the statutory embargo.
Conclusion: The statutory bar under Section 43D(5) was attracted and the accusation was found prima facie true; bail was therefore not warranted.