UAPA Bail Provisions: Legal Expert Explains Court's Decision-Making

“There are various factors that weigh with the courts while adjudicating upon a bail application in UAPA indictments. First of all, the specific allegations in the chargesheets need to be identified and then, the statements of co-accused need to be assailed, as in many cases, the person is arrested on the basis of mere disclosure statements of co-accused and thus, the nexus between the person and other co-accused needs to be broken from the very beginning. The voluntariness and authenticity of the statements need to be challenged. It needs to be seen whether the statements have been retracted. The probative value of the evidence is to be countered. It needs to be seen whether the investigating agency has complied with all the mandatory legal procedures envisaged under UAPA and CrPC and in judicial precedents during investigation, for example, during search & seizure, recording of statements, collection of electronic evidence, etc. The sanction order under Section 45 needs to be examined.”

“The landmark judgment on this issue is the 2019 case of the Supreme Court titled NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, wherein it was categorically laid down that “By its very nature, the expression “prima facie true” would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the Investigating Agency in reference to the accusation against the concerned accused in the first information report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence. It must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. In one sense, the degree of satisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is “prima facie true”, as compared to the opinion of accused “not guilty” of such offence as required under the other special enactments.””