Prima Facie Proof of Terrorist Conspiracy and Arms Possession Disentitles Accused to Bail Under UAPA

The Appellant (Accused No. 3) was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on May 12, 2023, following the recovery of high-quality counterfeit currency from his brother, Riyaz (A-1).

A subsequent search at their shared residence led to the seizure of illegal arms.

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant was in contact with wanted terrace Javed Patel @ Javed Chikna (listed under Schedule IV of the UAP Act) via international numbers and had searched for methods to change IP addresses to facilitate unlawful activities.

The Appellant sought bail, contending he was falsely implicated and that financial transfers between him and A-1 were mere household expenses.

The Special Court rejected his bail application on February 3, 2024.

The Court applied Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act regarding the maintainability of appeals against bail orders.

It further invoked Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning conspiracy for terrorist acts and Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), and 489A-C (counterfeiting currency) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court relied on the restricted bail standards under the UAPA, where bail is denied if the accusations are "prima facie true".

The Court rejected the Appellant’s defense that financial transactions of ₹50,000 were for household expenses, noting that bank statements showed no regular pattern of such transfers.

It observed that while no counterfeit notes were recovered directly from the Appellant, evidence of an SMS instructing an "uncle" to "pick up" something suggested involvement in the logistics of the crime.

The Court highlighted the Appellant's use of international numbers and internet searches on "how to change IP addresses" as evidence of an attempt to communicate with wanted terrorists (Javed Chikna) while evading detection.

Furthermore, the presence of photographs of illegal arms on the Appellant's mobile phone, coupled with the recovery of actual arms from the premises, established a nexus between the Appellant and the alleged conspiracy.

The Court concluded that the cumulative material provided by the NIA possessed sufficient probative value to meet the "prima facie true" threshold.

The High Court upheld the Special Court's decision, ruling that there was no error in law or fact in the impugned order; the Appeal was dismissed, and the prayer for bail was rejected.