Kekhriesatuo Tep & Ors. vs National Investigation Agency
Background
The appellants, who were government servants, were arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2017-2018 for allegedly paying money ("tax") to a banned organization (linked to NSCN(K) extortion activity) under Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA. A Special NIA Court in Nagaland granted them bail, reasoning that they were coerced into making payments rather than voluntarily funding the organization. The NIA appealed, and the Gauhati High Court reversed the bail orders, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA requires the court to be satisfied that the accusation is "prima facie true," a lower threshold than "not guilty" under other special statutes like TADA or NDPS. The Special Judge had found a genuine distinction between people who extort money for a terrorist organization and those, like the appellants, who are compelled under threat to pay, and had also noted the NIA's own admission that the appellants cooperated voluntarily with the investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court should only overturn a bail grant if the trial court's view was "perverse or impossible," which was not the case here. The High Court's orders cancelling bail were therefore quashed, and the original bail orders restored, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying case.
Lesson Learnt
In UAPA bail matters, courts must distinguish between people who further a terrorist organization's activities voluntarily and those coerced into compliance under threat; an appellate court cannot casually undo a considered bail grant unless the reasoning was perverse or legally impossible.