A prima facie UAPA case and progressing trial justify continued detention despite prolonged incarceration.

A case initially registered under IPC provisions was transferred to the National Investigation Agency and re-registered against 12 accused under Sections 120-B, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The original final report was filed on 23.06.2020.

The appellant was subsequently added as Accused No. 13 and arrested on 21.12.2020. A supplementary charge-sheet alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 471 and 201 IPC, Sections 18, 38 and 39 UAPA, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

The prosecution alleged that he participated in an ISIS/Daish-related terror conspiracy, including procurement of materials for an improvised explosive device, participation in meetings concerning jihad and ISIS, proposed travel for “Hijrah,” and destruction of incriminating electronic material.

His earlier bail appeal had been dismissed on 18.06.2024 after the Court found a prima facie case and held that the bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA applied.

The present appeal challenged the Special Court’s subsequent rejection of bail dated 18.07.2025. At the time of hearing, cognizance had been taken, charges had been framed against Accused Nos. 1–19 on 10–11.03.2025, seven prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the prosecution undertook to limit the witnesses to 90 and complete the trial within six months.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, notwithstanding the restriction under Section 43D(5) UAPA?

Whether the appellant’s prolonged incarceration, in light of Article 21 of the Constitution and the delayed progress of the trial, justified grant of bail?

Whether any new material or changed circumstance warranted review of the earlier finding that a prima facie case existed against the appellant?

The Court considered the appellate jurisdiction under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and applied Section 43D(5) UAPA, under which bail cannot ordinarily be granted where, on a perusal of the case diary or charge-sheet, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.

The Court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, recognising that constitutional courts may grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions where prolonged incarceration and inordinate trial delay make continued detention incompatible with Article 21; however, the application of that principle depends on the gravity of the offence, the accused’s specific role, the nature of the evidence, and the actual progress of the trial.

The Court also applied the principle that a concluded finding of a prima facie case is not to be revisited in the absence of a genuine change in circumstances or material capable of undermining the earlier determination.

The Court held that the earlier order dated 18.06.2024 had already examined the allegations and witness statements and found a prima facie case involving offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, thereby attracting Section 43D(5).

The appellant’s reliance on invoices for potassium nitrate and batteries did not materially alter that assessment. Although each item could have an innocent individual use, the prosecution case concerned their collective procurement, along with sugar and other substances, for preparing and operating an IED in furtherance of violent jihad.

The Court therefore declined to review its earlier prima facie finding.

On Article 21, the Court acknowledged the duration of custody but found that the trial had commenced, charges had been framed, seven prosecution witnesses had already been examined, and the prosecution had undertaken to complete the trial within six months after pruning the witness list.

In those circumstances, continued detention was not held to justify overriding the statutory bail restriction.

The criminal appeal challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.