Bail Denied Where Nexus With Organized Crime Syndicate and Terror Funding is Prima Facie Established

The Appellant, allegedly an associate of the "D-Company" headed by Dawood Ibrahim, was accused of extorting ₹16 crores between 2008–2018

The NIA alleged that in April 2022, the Appellant received ₹25 lakhs from a hawala operator on instructions from Accused No. 1 (Arif Shaikh), retaining ₹5 lakhs as proceeds of terrorism

During a search on May 9, 2022, the NIA recovered ₹5 lakhs and a signal/blank pistol from his residence

The Appellant was arrested on May 12, 2022, for offences under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, and 40 of the UAPA; Sections 387, 120B, and 201 of the IPC; and various sections of the MCOC Act

After his second bail application was rejected by the Special NIA Court on December 5, 2024, the Appellant preferred this appeal

1. Whether the accusations against the Appellant regarding his involvement in fund-raising for a terrorist syndicate are "prima facie true" under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA

2. Whether the Appellant was entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (over two years and eight months) and lack of specific anti-national acts in the FIR

The Court applied Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which prohibits bail if the accusations are "prima facie true"

It relied on NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, establishing that the court must assess "broad probabilities" rather than meticulously examine evidence at the bail stage

Following Gulfisha Fatima v. State, the court used a three-pronged test: checking statutory ingredients, role nexus, and individual threshold

It further applied Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act, noting per Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra that multiple charge-sheets against the syndicate, rather than the individual, suffice for "continuing unlawful activity"

Regarding delay, it applied Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that trial delay alone cannot override statutory bail bars in grave offences

The Court found a clear nexus between the Appellant and the organized crime syndicate headed by Chhota Shakil (Wanted Accused No. 2) based on witness statements and the recovery of ₹5 lakhs

It rejected the Appellant’s defense that the signal pistol was for "self-defense" and the cash was for "jakat" (charity), noting a lack of supporting material for such claims

The Court emphasized that the Appellant had formatted his phone and destroyed his SIM card, which prima facie indicated an attempt to destroy incriminating electronic evidence and conceal associations with wanted terrorists

Following the Watali standard, the Court determined that the prosecution’s material, taken at face value, provided reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were true, thus triggering the statutory embargo on bail

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Special NIA Court’s order denying bail

The prayer to quash the order dated December 5, 2024, was rejected