Court Emphasizes Prima Facie Truth of Charges Under UAPA, Rejects Bail Despite Prolonged Custody, Citing Expeditious Trial Progress
In a significant judgment delivered on October 3, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench, Jaipur Bench) dismissed multiple bail appeals filed by accused individuals, including Wasim Ali, implicated in the brutal murder of Kanhaiya Lal. The appellants challenged the Special Court (NIA Cases), Jaipur's orders rejecting their bail applications under the stringent provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The case arises from a heinous terrorist act where Kanhaiya Lal, the victim, was murdered inside his shop in broad daylight by assailants who recorded the killing and circulated the video on social media to incite terror and communal disharmony. The incident followed a series of events triggered by controversial remarks made by a political spokesperson, which led to widespread communal tensions.
The NIA took over the investigation upon directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs and filed a comprehensive charge-sheet. Charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including murder (Section 302), promoting enmity (Sections 153A and 153B), and others, alongside provisions under UAPA relating to terrorist acts and criminal conspiracy, were framed against the accused. The appellants have been in judicial custody since 2022.
The defense argued for bail on grounds including absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime scene, prolonged incarceration exceeding four and a half years, and procedural flaws such as the language in which disclosure statements were recorded. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents (Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA) emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and bail in cases of undue delay.
However, the prosecution, represented by the National Investigation Agency, contended that the accused played an active and integral role in an organized conspiracy aimed at terrorizing the nation and disrupting communal harmony. The circulated video was a deliberate act to create fear and unrest. The trial was reported to be proceeding expeditiously with about 30 primary witnesses already examined out of a reduced list of 89.
The High Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain, meticulously analyzed the statutory framework under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes a stringent embargo on bail for offenses under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, unless the court finds no reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true.
Drawing heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reaffirmed that at the bail stage, the court's role is limited to a prima facie assessment of the prosecution material without conducting a mini-trial or weighing evidence. The Court noted that since charges had already been framed, a strong suspicion existed against the accused, and the foundation for bail denial was satisfied.
Addressing the argument regarding prolonged incarceration, the Court distinguished the present case from precedents allowing bail on this ground, observing the active progress of the trial and the reduced witness list, negating any claim of unreasonable delay. The Court also dismissed contentions related to the admissibility of evidence and language of statements as matters for trial.
In conclusion, the Court held that the brutal, premeditated terrorist act, the role of the accused in the larger criminal conspiracy, and the ongoing trial's expeditious nature warranted upholding the statutory bar on bail under UAPA. The appeals were dismissed, and the bail rejection orders by the trial court were affirmed.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to bail proceedings and shall not influence the trial's merits.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance against terror-related crimes threatening national security and communal harmony, emphasizing a strict approach to bail under UAPA while balancing constitutional safeguards.
Bottom Line:
Bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, requires satisfying stringent statutory conditions and cannot be granted solely on the grounds of prolonged incarceration if the trial is progressing.
Statutory provision(s):
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 43D(5), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 Section 21(4), Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 452, 153A, 153B, 295A, 34, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 25, 27, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
