The court reaffirms that the prima facie evaluation for bail under UAPA requires the prosecution to substantiate accusations beyond mere allegations, linking the accused to acts of terrorism and conspiracy.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 r/w Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Amitabh Rawat, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Karkardooma District court (Shahdara district), Delhi, whereby the Appellant's Application for grant of Regular Bail was dismissed in case FIR No. 59/2020, PS. Crime Branch (investigated by the special cell) registered under section 120B read with 124A, 302, 207, 353, 186, 212, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 109, 114, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP) Act, 1984, Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (hereinafter, UAPA).

2. By way of the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2022, the Ld. Trial Court returned a finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant were "prima-facie true" on the perusal of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents for the limited purpose of bail and as such the embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA as well as section 437 of the Criminal procedure Code squarely applied for grant of bail to the appellant and thus, the prayer for grant of regular Bail was declined.

3. It is this impugned order, which is subject matter of Appeal before this court, wherein the appellant besides praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 is also praying for release on regular Bail in the instant FIR No. 59/2020, PS. Crime Branch.

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

4. Briefly stated, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered by the Crime Branch on 06.03.2020, alleging that the riots which took place in North East Delhi between 23.02.2020 and 25.02.2020 were the result of a pre planned conspiracy between the Appellant along with his associates from different organizations, who have all planned and carried out the said conspiracy which culminated in the said Riots. It has been alleged that the appellant had made provocative speeches at different locations and made an appeal to people to come out and block the streets, during the visit of US President Donald Trump, so as to publicize, at an international level, that minorities were being targeted and discriminated against in India.

5. Further, the Appellant and his associates also conspired to bring women and children onto the streets in several parts of Delhi with the intention of causing riots, pursuant to which, on 23.02.2020, women & children gathered under the Jaffrabad metro station to block roads with the object of inconveniencing people, escalating tensions and ultimately inciting riots. On the same day, children were taken out of some schools for minorities in a pre-planned fashion. Moreover, firearm, petrol bombs, acid bottles, stones with slingshots to pelt them etc. were gathered at several places such as Maujpur, Kardampuri, Jaffrabad, Chandbagh, Gokulpuri, Shiv Vihar and their neighbouring areas.

6. The said riots which ensued between 23.02.2020 and 25.02.2020, not only rocked Delhi but the entire count