Statutory bail restraints under UA(P) Act prevail over claims of prolonged incarceration in grave offences.

In March 2021, an IED blast orchestrated by CPI (Maoist) cadres at Lanji Hill, West Singhbhum, resulted in the death of three security personnel and multiple injuries

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) re-registered the case (RC-02/2021/NIA/RNC) and alleged that the appellant (A-12) conspired with other cadres to supply 700 Kgs of potash—an explosive chemical—from Madhya Pradesh to Jharkhand, which was subsequently used in the blast

The appellant was remanded on July 31, 2021

His previous bail applications were rejected on merits by the High Court in January and October 2024

The appellant renewed his prayer for bail before the Special Court, NIA, Ranchi, on the grounds of prolonged custody and delay in trial (citing only 37 of 169 witnesses examined), which was rejected on October 10, 2025

This appeal challenges that rejection.

Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which prohibits the grant of bail if the court, on perusal of the case diary or final report, is of the opinion that the accusations are "prima facie true"

NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1], which established that "prima facie true" means the materials must show complicity on their face unless disproved

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2024 SCC OnLine SC 109], observing that under the UA(P) Act, "jail is the rule and bail is the exception," and mere delay in trial for grave offences does not automatically entitle an accused to bail

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], noting that constitutional safeguards apply only when a trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time and must be balanced against societal and national security interests

The court found that the evidence collected by the NIA, specifically the supply of 700 Kgs of explosive chemicals used in a fatal attack on security forces, established a direct and serious link between the appellant and the terrorist act

Consequently, the court held that the accusations were "prima facie true," triggering the absolute bar to bail under Section 43D(5)

Regarding the delay, the court noted that the prosecution had pruned the witness list from 169 to 78, and with 37 already examined in an exclusive Special Court, the trial was progressing reasonably

The court reasoned that Article 21 rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the "paramount considerations of national interest"

Given the gravity of the offence and the appellant’s criminal antecedents of a similar nature, the court concluded that delay alone could not serve as a "trump card" to bypass statutory restraints

The court held that the materials on record sufficiently established a prima facie case against the appellant for offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UA(P) Act

It further held that in cases involving national integrity and security, long incarceration is not the sole ground for consideration if the trial is in progress and the accusations are grave

The court clarified that these findings were limited to the bail stage and would not influence the final trial