Five accused in Kanhaiya Lal murder case denied bail as Rajasthan High Court finds prima facie case and trial progressing rapidly

The appeals arose from the NIA investigation into the June 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur.

The prosecution alleged that the assailants recorded and circulated the murder to spread terror and communal enmity, and that the appellants participated in a larger conspiracy to facilitate the crime.

The NIA filed a charge-sheet, and charges were framed in January and February 2024.

The appellants, in custody since July or August 2022, challenged the Special Court’s orders refusing bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

They relied, among other grounds, on prolonged incarceration and trial delay; the NIA opposed bail, pointing to the alleged conspiracy and the progress of the trial.

Whether the accusations against the appellants met the “prima facie true” threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, such that the statutory restriction on bail applied

Whether the appellants’ period of pre-trial incarceration and the trial’s progress justified bail under Article 21 notwithstanding the UAPA restriction

Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, an accused charged with offences under Chapters IV or VI cannot be released on bail if, on considering the case diary or police report, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true; the inquiry is limited and does not permit a mini-trial.

National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, requires the court to consider the prosecution material as a whole and at face value, without weighing evidence or deciding admissibility; framing of charges is relevant to that assessment.

Article 21 remains a safeguard against unjustified prolonged detention: Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, recognises that constitutional liberty may warrant bail where trial cannot reasonably conclude and incarceration is substantial.

The court read that principle alongside Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10, which requires disciplined, accused-specific scrutiny under Section 43D(5), and states that Article 21 informs the application of the statutory threshold but does not displace it.

The appeals were brought under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.

The Court considered that the charge-sheet and the charges framed indicated sufficient material to proceed, and concluded that the prosecution material, taken at face value, prima facie implicated the appellants in the alleged conspiracy.

It regarded the alleged roles, together with the circumstantial and electronic material relied on by the prosecution, as providing a nexus to the alleged terrorist activity; challenges concerning disclosure statements and electronic evidence were matters for trial, not bail-stage evaluation.

On Article 21, the Court distinguished cases involving stalled trials: it accepted the NIA’s submissions that the witness list had been reduced to 89, about 30 material witnesses had been examined, and the trial was proceeding actively.

It therefore found that the delay ground did not justify overriding the statutory restriction in this case.

It dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Special Court’s orders refusing bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail appeals and were not to influence the trial.