-
by Admin
17 December 2025 11:04 AM
"Once the Court is satisfied that the accusations under UAPA are prima facie true, the embargo under Section 43D(5) becomes operative — bail is no longer a matter of discretion", declared the Jharkhand High Court in Ajay Turi v. The State of Jharkhand & National Investigation Agency, dismissing a fresh bail appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Delivering a significant ruling on the interplay of bail jurisprudence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the limits of judicial discretion, the Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai held that no indulgence can be shown once the Court forms an opinion that the allegations, supported by materials, meet the "prima facie true" threshold under Section 43D(5). The Court refused to interfere with the trial court's rejection of bail dated 30.08.2024, stating: "This Court is not inclined to interfere... since the trial is proceeding, and no fresh legal ground has been made out."
“Long Incarceration Alone Not Sufficient for Bail in Grave UAPA Offences”
The appellant, Ajay Turi, currently in custody since 07.02.2021, had filed a second bail application citing prolonged detention, arguing violation of his personal liberty. Rejecting the contention, the Court observed:
"Only the long incarceration is not the ground to be looked into for enlarging the accused on bail; rather, the accusation so made against the accused persons as also societal impact is also to be taken care of."
The Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, where it was categorically held that “the conventional idea of ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ does not find any place under UAPA.”
Reiterating this deviation from general criminal law, the Bench noted that under UAPA, "bail is the exception and jail is the rule", and that once the Court is satisfied that the allegations are prima facie true, the statutory bar comes into force and the Court becomes duty-bound to reject bail.
Court Emphasizes Prima Facie Standard: Lighter Than Guilt, But Strong Enough To Deny Bail
In its legal reasoning, the Court heavily cited the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1. Referring to paragraph 23 of that judgment, the Court observed:
"The materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency... must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, show the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence."
The Court clarified that under the UAPA framework, the burden on the prosecution is not to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, but only to show that the allegations, supported by material evidence, are “prima facie true”, which is a significantly lighter threshold.
The Court held that in the present case, the evidence, including protected witnesses’ statements, the accused’s involvement in preparatory acts, and recovery of arms, satisfied the prima facie standard.
Earlier Bail Rejection Affirmed by Supreme Court – No New Grounds Raised
The appellant had earlier filed a similar bail application which had been rejected by the High Court on 17.05.2023. A Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 22.01.2024. The Supreme Court, however, granted liberty to reapply in case the trial does not proceed. The High Court found that this liberty could not be invoked since:
“The trial is in progress, charges have been framed, and a substantial number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined.”
Further, the Court noted that the present application raised no new factual or legal grounds, making the current appeal unsustainable. The judgment reiterated:
"Since no fresh ground is available for the appellant, it is not required for this Court to reiterate its view on merit."
Court Recalls Role of the Accused: “Recce, Conspiracy, and Arms Recovery”
The Court noted the specific allegations against the appellant in connection with a violent incident at Tetariakhand Colliery in December 2020, involving armed attacks on police, arson, extortion threats, and criminal conspiracy. The Bench stated:
“The appellant had gone to the shop for purchase of electric wire, battery of motorcycle and petrol with gallons... and was apprehended from the forest along with other gang members.”
Despite the absence of handwriting match on threat pamphlets from the Forensic Science Lab, the Court emphasized that there were other credible pieces of evidence tying the appellant to the offence, including the recovery of a country-made pistol and live cartridges from his possession.
Test for Bail Reiterated: Twin-Prong Inquiry Under UAPA
Relying on the twin-prong test laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh, the Bench reiterated:
Whether the allegations under Chapter IV or VI of the UAPA are prima facie true, based on the case diary or chargesheet.
Only if this threshold is not met, should the Court consider general bail principles (flight risk, tampering, etc.) under Section 439 CrPC.
Since the prosecution had demonstrated prima facie involvement of the appellant, the Court concluded that the statutory bar applied, and the case could not proceed to the second stage of bail analysis.
No Relief Under Bail Jurisprudence Where Terror Allegations Meet Prima Facie Standard
Summing up, the Jharkhand High Court held: “Taking into consideration that this Court has earlier expressed its view, on merit... and there is no change in circumstances... the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 requires no interference.”
The appeal was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Date of Decision: 23rd September 2025
