#Terrorism Offences

Punjab & Haryana HC reinforces UAPA's stringent bail provisions, holding that mere prolonged incarceration or prior acquittals cannot override the statutory mandate of Section 43D(5) if the accusations appear prima facie true. The ruling underscores the high threshold for bail in terror-related offences, prioritizing national security over individual liberty in such cases.

Jharkhand HC reaffirms that bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA cannot be granted solely on grounds of trial delay or parity with co-accused unless the prosecution's case is prima facie untrue. The court emphasized that parity must be based on role equivalence, not mere charge similarity, reinforcing the stringent bail standards under anti-terror laws.