Headline: Section 43D(5) UAPA bail embargo prevails over prolonged incarceration if accusations are prima facie true Facts Four police personnel were killed and their arms looted during an indiscriminate ambush by the proscribed organization CPI (Maoist). The appellant (Accused No. 5) was arrested for allegedly acting as an overground worker (OGW), providing logistic support, conveying messages, and offering his motorcycle to the terrorists. The appellant sought regular bail for the second time, citing nearly five years of incarceration, delay in trial, and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail by a coordinate bench. Issue Whether prolonged incarceration and the principle of parity can override the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Ruling The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of bail. The Court held that: * Statutory Embargo: Section 43D(5) of the UAPA creates a mandatory bar on bail if the court find the accusations to be "prima facie true." The conventional "bail is the rule, jail is exception" principle does not apply to UAPA cases. * Incarceration vs. National Security: Prolonged incarceration or delay in trial is not a "trump card" that automatically displaces the statutory restraint under Section 43D(5). Individual liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against the paramount interests of national security and societal impact. * Limits of Parity: Parity in bail is not an absolute legal right. It requires a specific focus on the role of the accused. The appellant’s role as a logistic provider for a terrorist attack was distinct and supported by prima facie evidence, making parity inapplicable. * Trial Progress: Since sixteen witnesses had already been examined and the trial was progressing expeditiously, the plea of "probable delay" was rejected.

The Appellant (A-5) challenged the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, which rejected his bail application in connection with RC Case No. 25/2020/NIA/DLI

The case involves a 2019 attack by the banned CPI (Maoist) organization on a police patrolling party at Lukuiya More, resulting in the death of four police personnel and the looting of arms

The NIA alleged the Appellant acted as an "Over Ground Worker" (OGW) providing logistical support, including food, motorcycle transport, and conveying messages for the extremist leader Ravindra Ganjhu (A-14)

The Appellant has been in custody since 06.01.2020

A previous bail prayer was dismissed on merits by the High Court in 2023

The current appeal sought bail primarily on grounds of parity with co-accused Rajesh Ganjhu and Baijnath Ganjhu, who were granted bail in late 2025, and the prolonged period of incarceration

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co-accused who were released due to prolonged incarceration and trial delay

2. Whether the period of incarceration (since January 2020) and the slow progress of the trial entitle the Appellant to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution despite the restrictions of the UAPA

3. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellant are "prima facie true" as per the mandate of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA

The Court primarily applied Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which mandates that bail must be refused if the accusations are "prima facie true"

It relied on National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which established that "prima facie true" means materials collected by the agency must prevail unless disproved at the threshold

The Court further applied the "twin-prong test" from Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, affirming that in UAPA cases, jail is the rule and bail is the exception

Regarding trial delay, it followed Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), which held that delay is not a "trump card" where national security and sovereignty are implicated

Parity principles were applied per Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, ED, requiring focus on the specific role of the accused

The Court observed that the Appellant's role as an OGW was substantiated by the supplementary chargesheet, showing he provided vital logistics, such as food and motorcycle transport, and acted as a messenger for Maoist leaders

The Court rejected the plea of parity, noting that the Appellant's previous bail application was dismissed on merits and his role was significantly more active than those granted bail on the basis of "peripheral" involvement

Regarding Article 21 and the delay in trial, the Court noted that 16 witnesses had already been examined and the trial was progressing

Citing Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima, the Court reasoned that in grave offences involving terrorist acts and the killing of police personnel, prolonged incarceration alone cannot override the statutory bar of Section 43D(5) when the accusations appear prima facie true

The High Court found no change in circumstances or fresh grounds for bail, stating that parity cannot be claimed where the specific role and evidence indicate active support to a proscribed organization

The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Special NIA Court was upheld