Bail granted under UAPA where cash possession is explained by documented land sale and overdraft facility.

In brief

The question

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the applicants under the UAPA are prima facie true so as to bar the grant of bail.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that there were no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe the accusations were prima facie true.

It also directed

The bail application was allowed.

The Court ordered the release of Anowar Hussain and Malikuddin Sheikh on a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer, deposition of contact/identification details, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence.

01Facts

The applicants were arrested on 29.01.2026 following the interception of their vehicle by police on NH-27.

p. 2

Authorities recovered ₹70,88,000 in cash, nine cheques totaling ₹43,00,000, and a land sale deed.

p. 2

The State alleged the funds were intended for terrorist activities, charging the applicants under Section 147 of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

p. 3

Applicant No. 1 contended the money was legitimate proceeds from a land sale in Guwahati intended for his daughter’s medical school fees and supported this with a registered sale deed and bank loan documents.

pp. 3-5

After 23 days in custody, the applicants moved for bail.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the applicants under the UAPA are prima facie true so as to bar the grant of bail.

p. 8 · ¶ 15

ii.2. Whether the continued custodial detention of the applicants is necessary for the ongoing investigation.

p. 8 · ¶ 16

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the power to grant bail.

p. 2

It significantly relied on the principle established in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2022) 14 SCC 766, which mandates that under UAPA, a court must examine if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true; if not, the restriction on bail does not apply.

p. 8 · ¶ 15

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 the State alleged a "confessional statement" regarding Jihadi links, there was no independent substantive evidence to connect the applicants to terrorist activities.

p. 8 · ¶ 14

Conversely, the Court found credible evidence supporting the applicants' defense: a seized Agreement of Sale confirming the monetary transaction for land and records of an approved ₹50,00,000 overdraft facility from ICICI Bank.

pp. 7-8

The Court noted that despite 23 days of custody (including 5 days of police remand), the investigation had failed to produce a "direct link" or "convincing materials" implicating the applicants in any unlawful organization.

p. 8 · ¶ 14, 16

Consequently, the stringent "prima facie true" threshold for denying bail under UAPA was not met.

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that there were no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe the accusations were prima facie true.

p. 8

The bail application was allowed.

p. 9

LawLens.Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF