Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA"

Stringent Provisions of UAPA Leave No Room for Bail When Prosecution Establishes Reasonable Grounds for Terror Links - In a significant ruling Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed bail applications filed by Dongari Devendra and Chukka Shilpa, accused of recruiting members for the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. The Court ruled that the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), bar the grant of bail when prima facie evidence links the accused to terrorist activities.

Rejecting the appeals, the Court held, “Once the prosecution presents sufficient material to show reasonable grounds that the allegations are true, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA mandates that bail cannot be granted. The severity of the offense and its impact on national security demand strict enforcement of the law.”

"A Missing Woman, Allegations of Radicalization, and an NIA Investigation—Did the Accused Recruit Members for CPI (Maoist)?"
The case originated from a complaint by Pallepati Pochamma, who alleged that her daughter, Radha, was forcibly radicalized and recruited into the CPI (Maoist) by members of Chaitanya Mahila Sangham (CMS), an organization allegedly acting as a front for the banned outfit. The complaint led to the registration of Crime No. 1 of 2022 at Peddabayalu Police Station, which was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The prosecution alleged that Dongari Devendra, a leader of CMS, played a central role in indoctrinating young women and facilitating their induction into CPI (Maoist), while Chukka Shilpa, the General Secretary of CMS, actively engaged in recruitment operations. The complainant stated that her daughter was taken away in 2017 under the pretext of medical treatment and never returned. Nine months later, an unidentified individual warned the family not to inquire about her whereabouts.

The Court observed, “The statements of the complainant and other protected witnesses suggest that the accused were actively involved in recruiting members for CPI (Maoist). When such grave allegations are supported by direct evidence, courts must be cautious while considering bail.”

"UAPA Imposes Strict Bail Conditions—Court Finds No Grounds to Interfere"
Analyzing the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, the Court ruled that bail could not be granted when the prosecution presents material showing reasonable grounds that the accusations are prima facie true. Rejecting the defense’s argument that there was insufficient direct evidence, the Court held, “Unlike ordinary criminal cases, UAPA reverses the bail standard. The accused must show that the allegations are false, and when the prosecution has collected strong evidence, bail is out of question.”

The Court emphasized that documents recovered during the investigation, including letters from the accused to known Maoist leaders, and witness testimonies linking them to recruitment activities, establish a strong prima facie case. The Court noted, “When documentary proof corroborates witness statements, the evidentiary threshold under UAPA is met, and bail must be denied.”

"Delay in Filing the Complaint Does Not Undermine the Case"
The defense argued that the complaint was lodged four years after Radha allegedly went missing, raising doubts about its authenticity. The Court dismissed this contention, ruling that “Delay in reporting radicalization cases is natural due to fear of retaliation. A delayed FIR cannot weaken a case where substantive evidence exists.”

The Court further held that “terror-related offenses require a broader approach, as victims’ families often remain silent due to coercion. The prosecution’s case cannot be discarded merely because the complaint was filed later.”

"Association With a Lawful Organization Does Not Provide Immunity Under UAPA"
The defense also contended that CMS was a legally registered organization and not a banned outfit under UAPA. The Court rejected this argument, ruling that “even if an organization itself is not prohibited, its members can be prosecuted under UAPA if they actively aid a terrorist organization. The protection of legality does not extend to those who facilitate proscribed activities.”

Referring to recovered letters and protected witness statements, the Court observed, “Evidence suggests that the accused were using CMS as a cover to recruit young individuals into CPI (Maoist). The argument that CMS is not banned does not negate their direct involvement in terrorist activities.”

"Bail Rightly Denied—Terror-Related Offenses Demand a Higher Standard of Scrutiny"
After reviewing the charge sheet, witness testimonies, and documentary evidence, the Court found no merit in the bail pleas and refused to interfere with the Special Court’s decision. Holding that the accusations had been substantiated to a prima facie level, the Court ruled, “Granting bail in such cases would be against national security interests. When the prosecution establishes reasonable grounds to believe that an accused has links to a terrorist organization, the law mandates that bail must be refused.”

Dismissing the appeals, the Court observed, “In cases of national security, courts must exercise extreme caution. The balance tilts in favor of preventing further offenses rather than granting bail. The trial must proceed, and the accused must face the charges in accordance with law.”
 

Date of Decision: 07 March 2025