Bail granted under UA(P)A where no prima facie material exists connecting accused to terrorist activities.

In brief

The question

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the applicant under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is *prima facie* true to justify continued detention

The court held

The Court held that no *prima facie* case was established against the applicant at this stage and granted the bail application

It also directed

The applicant was ordered to be released on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer, surrendering contact/identity details, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence

01Facts

The applicant, Dianur Islam, was arrested on 29.01.2026 in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 42/2026

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that based on credible information regarding the transport of funds for terrorist activities, a vehicle was intercepted containing the applicant and three others

p. 2

Police recovered Rs. 70,88,000/- in cash, nine cheques totaling Rs. 43,00,000/-, and a land sale deed

p. 2

It was alleged the accused confessed the money was intended for "Jihadi" organizations

p. 4

The applicant contended he is an Estate Manager at USTM and was merely guiding family acquaintances to the campus, unaware of the cash or the nature of the co-accused's transactions

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the applicant under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is *prima facie* true to justify continued detention

p. 5

ii.2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023

p. 2

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which restricts bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is *prima facie* true

p. 5

It further relied on the precedent of *Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India* (2022), which established that courts must examine the materials on record to determine if the specific accusations of terrorist activity are substantially supported at the bail stage

p. 5

The procedural framework for bail was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 147

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 15 Section 16 Section 17 Section 18

04Reasoning

The Court examined the Case Diary and observed that while a land sale deed and significant cash were seized, the documents indicated a legitimate transaction where co-accused Anowar Hussain sold land for Rs. 60,00,000/- and held an active bank overdraft facility

pp. 4-5

Despite the prosecution’s reliance on a "confessional statement" regarding Jihadi involvement, the Court found that the police had failed to gather any "convincing" or "prima facie" material connecting this specific applicant to terrorist activities during his 23 days in custody

p. 5

Applying the *Thwaha Fasal* standard, the Court determined that the mere presence of the applicant in the vehicle, without further incriminating evidence of intent or participation in an unlawful association, did not meet the high threshold for denying bail under the UAPA

p. 5