#UAPA bail

The Delhi High Court granted bail to two UAPA accused after nearly five years of pre-trial detention during which only 21 of 359 witnesses were examined, ruling that Article 21 constitutional protections prevail over Section 43D(5) statutory bail restrictions when trial delay is inordinate and the accused's role is peripheral. The decision reinforces that prolonged incarceration without trial progress cannot be justified solely by the severity of UAPA allegations.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the denial of bail under UAPA’s stringent Section 43(D)(5), ruling that prima facie evidence of terrorism-such as a hand grenade attack-justifies continued custody regardless of prolonged detention, forensic proof, or direct recovery. The judgment reinforces that UAPA’s bail provisions prioritize national security over individual liberty, setting a precedent for similar cases involving explosive substances and organized violence.

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.

Gauhati High Court grants bail in UAPA case, holding that mere suspicion without prima facie evidence cannot justify denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.