### Rigor of Section 43-D(5) UA(P) Act Overrides Speedy Trial Claims and Discretionary Relief for Forum Shopping Litigants

The appellant, Syed Irfan Ahmed (A-6), was charged under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, & 122 of the IPC and Sections 17, 18, 19, 38, 39, & 40 of the UA(P) Act.

He is alleged to have acted as an intermediary in a larger conspiracy involving Hisb-ul-Mujahideen (HM) militants, facilitating safe passage and transferring funds (₹50,000) to co-accused Devender Singh (A-3).

The appellant challenged the trial court’s order dated 22 April 2025, which denied him bail, citing the length of incarceration (5 years) and the lack of incriminating evidence from examined witnesses.

During the appeal, the appellant also sought relief on health grounds, while simultaneously filing similar applications before the trial court.

Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which restricts bail if the court finds reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true.

NIA v. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali, establishing that the court must look at the totality of gathered material and presume prosecution documents as true at the bail stage.

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, holding that the "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle does not apply to the UA(P) Act.

Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, which mandates that litigants attempting to "pollute the stream of justice" through forum shopping are not entitled to relief.

The Court found that bank records showed a transfer of ₹50,000 from the appellant to A-3, and CDR data indicated hundreds of calls linking him to the HM leadership.

Applying the Watali standard, the Court held that a prima facie case exists, triggering the statutory bar under Section 43-D (5).

The Court rejected the argument for speedy trial relief, noting that in cases of grave terror-related offences involving "non-state actors," the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 does not automatically displace the mandate of special statutes.

Regarding the health plea, the Court noted the medical report classified the surgical procedure as minor, requiring no attendant.

The Court condemned the appellant's "forum shopping" by seeking identical relief from the trial court while the High Court was seized of the matter, labeling it an abuse of process.

The Court dismissed the appeal and rejected the bail application, affirming that a mini-trial to evaluate only partially examined witnesses is legally impermissible at this stage.