Case Note & Summary
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) appealed against the order of the Special Judge granting bail to Respondent No.1, Naresh Ramniklal Gaur @ Gor, in connection with Crime No. RC-01/2021/NIA/Mumbai. The case originated from the recovery of twenty gelatine sticks and a threatening note from a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle on 25 February 2021, targeting a prominent industrialist and his wife. The FIR was initially registered at Gamdevi Police Station under various sections of IPC and the Explosive Substances Act, and later re-registered by NIA adding offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The respondent was arrested as accused No.2. The Special Judge granted bail with conditions, which NIA challenged. The High Court, after hearing arguments, upheld the bail order. The court analyzed the provisions of UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5) which imposes restrictions on grant of bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is not prima facie true. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under UAPA as there was no evidence linking the respondent to any terrorist act or unlawful activity. The recovery of explosives alone, without proof of intent to commit a terrorist act, was insufficient. The court also noted that the respondent had no criminal antecedents and was not directly involved in the recovery. The bail conditions imposed by the Special Judge were deemed adequate to ensure the respondent's presence at trial. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether there was a prima facie case against the accused for offences under UAPA. Held that mere recovery of gelatine sticks and a threatening note, without evidence linking the accused to a terrorist act or unlawful activity, does not satisfy the threshold under Sections 16, 18, 20 of UAPA. The bail order was upheld. (Paras 1-30) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Twin Conditions - The court interpreted the twin conditions under Section 43D(5) and held that the prosecution must show reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish such grounds. (Paras 15-25) C) Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 302, 364, 384, 386, 403, 419, 465, 471, 473, 506 - Conspiracy and Extortion - The court noted that the allegations of conspiracy and extortion were not sufficiently supported by evidence against the accused. The bail was granted primarily on the ground that the accused was not directly involved in the recovery of explosives. (Paras 10-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge erred in granting bail to the accused under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, particularly in light of Section 43D(5) which imposes restrictions on grant of bail.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 20 November 2021 passed by the Special Judge granting bail to Respondent No.1 is upheld.
Law Points
- Bail under UAPA
- Prima facie case
- Section 43D(5) UAPA
- Twin conditions
- Terrorist act
- Unlawful activity
- Conspiracy
- Recovery of explosives
- Standard of proof at bail stage
