Prolonged incarceration cannot displace the statutory bar against bail under UAPA where accusations are prima facie true.

The prosecution alleges that the appellant is an active member of the "Aman Sao gang," which operates an extortion racket from jail, targeting coal transporters and businessmen to fund the purchase of sophisticated weapons like AK-47s

On July 17, 2023, during an ATS operation to apprehend gang members in Ramgarh, the accused party opened fire on the police, causing gunshot injuries to a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a Sub-Inspector

The appellant was implicated through confessional statements of co-accused (Chandan Saw and Siddharth Saw), identifying him as a gang leader who provided instructions for violent acts

The appellant, who has 22 criminal antecedents, sought regular bail after his previous bail appeal [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 992 of 2024] was dismissed on merits by the High Court on February 10, 2025

The current appeal challenges the Special Judge-ATS’s order dated September 19, 2025, which rejected his second bail application

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are prima facie true, thereby invoking the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5)

2. Whether long incarceration (approx. 2 years and 7 months) and the possibility of a delayed trial constitute sufficient grounds for bail in a UAPA case

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that an accused shall not be released on bail if the court, perusing the case diary or final report, finds the accusations to be "prima facie true"

NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which established that "prima facie true" means evidence must prevail until disproved and requires a lower degree of satisfaction than "not guilty"

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, affirming that under UAPA, "jail is the rule and bail is the exception," and that mere delay in trial for grave offences is not a solitary ground for bail

Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana and Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, ED, holding that parity is not an absolute law and requires an identical role in the commission of the crime

The court found that the materials in the case diary, specifically the confessional statements and witness testimonies of injured officers, established the appellant’s strategic role as an instructor within the Aman Sao gang

Applying the "twin-prong test" from Gurwinder Singh, the court determined the accusations were prima facie true, satisfying the statutory bar under Section 43D(5)

The court rejected the plea of delay, noting that the trial was progressing with 7 out of 21 witnesses already examined, and held that individual liberty under Article 21 must yield to societal security in cases of organized crime

Furthermore, parity was denied because the appellant was identified as a gang leader/organizer, distinguishing his role from the peripheral or episodic roles of the co-accused who received bail

His extensive criminal history (22 cases) was viewed as a significant factor indicating a propensity for continuous unlawful activity

The court concluded that neither the period of custody nor the principle of parity justified interference with the trial court's decision, especially given the advanced stage of the trial

The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Special Judge-ATS, Ranchi, was upheld