The Supreme Court clarified the legal framework governing bail applications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that at the bail stage under Section 43D(5) of the Act, courts are not to consider defence arguments or weigh evidence but are limited to determining whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case. The judgment arose from applications filed by accused persons in a high-profile case, where the Court emphasised that a bail hearing is not a forum to conduct a mini-trial or examine competing contentions, but is confined to ascertaining whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. The Bench noted that Section 43D(5) represents a deliberate legislative departure from ordinary bail jurisprudence, reflecting Parliament’s intent to restrict bail in cases involving unlawful or terrorist activities, and that judicial restraint is required to ensure that the statutory purpose is not diluted by detailed evaluation of defence contentions at the preliminary stage.
The Court explained that the inquiry under Section 43D(5) is threefold. First, it must be examined whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case satisfying the statutory elements of the alleged offence. Second, the role attributed to the accused must demonstrate a meaningful nexus to the unlawful activity or terrorist activity, rather than mere association or peripheral presence. Third, the statutory threshold must be crossed for the individual accused without embarking upon a detailed assessment of evidence, which is reserved for trial. The Court clarified that each accused must be assessed individually, focusing on the specific allegations and role attributed to that person, rather than on a collective or undifferentiated view of a group of accused charged in the same transaction or conspiracy.
The Supreme Court further underscored that the court’s role at the bail stage is strictly to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It cannot weigh the strength of the prosecution’s case or consider the defence case at this stage. Judicial restraint in this context is a fulfillment of the statutory mandate, ensuring that the exceptional bail regime under UAPA operates as intended by Parliament. The Court emphasised that proper application of Section 43D(5) preserves the legislative purpose by refusing bail where the prosecution material satisfies the statutory ingredients of the offence and demonstrates a real nexus between the accused and the alleged unlawful activity, leaving detailed evidence and defence arguments to be examined at the trial.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.