Bail granted under UA(P)A where no prima facie material exists to connect seized cash to terrorist activities.

The Accused Applicant was arrested on 29.01.2026 following a police interception of a vehicle on NH-27.

Authorities recovered Rs. 70,88,000/- in cash, cheques worth Rs. 43,00,000/-, and a land sale deed, alleging the funds were intended for terrorist activities.

The Applicant was charged under Section 147 of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

The Applicant contended he was merely a passenger traveling to visit his children at local universities and was unaware of the co-accused's financial transactions.

After five days of police custody and eighteen days of judicial custody, the Applicant moved for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Accused Applicant under the UAPA are prima facie true to justify continued detention.

2. Whether the Accused Applicant is entitled to bail considering the nature of the evidence and the stage of the investigation.

The court primarily applied Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which mandates that bail shall not be granted if the court, on perusal of the case diary, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true.

It further relied on the precedent established in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2022) 14 SCC 766, which clarified that the court must examine the materials on record to determine the prima facie veracity of the allegations before denying liberty.

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court perused the Case Diary and observed a discrepancy between the prosecution's allegations and the seized materials.

While the police alleged the money was for "Jihadi" activities, the seized documents included a valid land sale agreement and evidence of a Rs. 50,00,000/- overdraft loan facility in the name of the co-accused, providing a plausible legal source for the funds.

The Court noted that despite a confessional statement, there was no independent "prima facie material" connecting this specific Applicant to terrorist acts.

Applying the Thwaha Fasal standard, the Court found that the investigation, though at a nascent stage, had failed to gather "convincing material" to satisfy the restrictive bail conditions of the UAPA against the Applicant.

The Court ordered the release of Imdadul Hoque Sarkar on a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties.

The release is subject to conditions including: reporting to the investigating officer monthly, providing comprehensive personal identification/contact details, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or hampering the investigation.