https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469401 Under the restrictive bail standard in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, prolonged incarceration and delay in trial did not, by themselves, justify regular bail where the prosecution alleged a large-scale organised conspiracy. The Court held that a broad-probabilities review under Section 43D(5) requires only a prima facie assessment, not a mini-trial, and found the material, including witness statements and electronic evidence, sufficient to show the accusation appeared prima facie true for bail purposes. Parity with co-accused was rejected because the alleged roles were materially different, and the right to protest did not extend to conspiratorial violence or unlawful mobilisation. The refusal of bail was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2026 21:37:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469401 Under the restrictive bail standard in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, prolonged incarceration and delay in trial did not, by themselves, justify regular bail where the prosecution alleged a large-scale organised conspiracy. The Court held that a broad-probabilities review under Section 43D(5) requires only a prima facie assessment, not a mini-trial, and found the material, including witness statements and electronic evidence, sufficient to show the accusation appeared prima facie true for bail purposes. Parity with co-accused was rejected because the alleged roles were materially different, and the right to protest did not extend to conspiratorial violence or unlawful mobilisation. The refusal of bail was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469401