https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752830 The SC held that the High Court was not bound to remand the bail matter after the second supplementary charge-sheet and transfer of investigation to the NIA, because it could examine the later material in appeal. On merits, the prosecution material did not make the UAPA accusations prima facie true: association, meetings, correspondence and presence were insufficient without credible evidence of intent to further terrorist activity, so the statutory bail bar did not apply. Given nearly six years of pre-trial custody, the absence of framed charges, and the appellant's age and health, continued detention was held unjustified. Bail was therefore directed subject to conditions. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2024 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752830 The SC held that the High Court was not bound to remand the bail matter after the second supplementary charge-sheet and transfer of investigation to the NIA, because it could examine the later material in appeal. On merits, the prosecution material did not make the UAPA accusations prima facie true: association, meetings, correspondence and presence were insufficient without credible evidence of intent to further terrorist activity, so the statutory bail bar did not apply. Given nearly six years of pre-trial custody, the absence of framed charges, and the appellant's age and health, continued detention was held unjustified. Bail was therefore directed subject to conditions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752830