The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a special leave petition filed by Mazhar Khan against the Rajasthan High Court's order, highlighting the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The apex court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, rejected Khan's bail plea, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie untrue.

Khan was apprehended on April 7, 2022, in connection with a case registered under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the UAPA Act, 1967. The crux of his counsel's argument was centered on the inadmissibility of the co-accused's statements as primary evidence, contending that they could not justify Khan's continued detention without the option of bail.

However, the Supreme Court, drawing on legal precedents, particularly the case of 'Watali' and the discussion in 'Vernon vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr' (2023), underscored the necessity for the court to be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie untrue. The bench, considering the materials presented, including the charge sheet and the accused's criminal antecedents in a similar case, ruled that bail was not warranted in Khan's case.

The court also took into account the argument presented by the Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, who opposed the bail by highlighting Khan's criminal history and his close association with individuals covered under the provisions of the UAPA Act. Nataraj referred to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, asserting that unless the court is reasonably convinced that the accusations are prima facie untrue, the order must favor the prosecution. This places the burden on the accused to overcome the threshold limit specified under Section 43D(5) of the proviso.

The Rajasthan High Court had earlier denied bail to Khan, citing various pieces of evidence against him. The court pointed to his previous arrest in 2015 under the UAPA Act, disclosure statements from co-accused regarding his presence in meetings, information provided by Khan under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of mobile phones connecting him to other co-accused, and the specific bar under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act.

Case: Mazhar Khan vs. N.I.A New Delhi,

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).14091/2023.

Click to read/download order.