Reaffirming the "Prima Facie True" Standard Under the UAPA: Commentary on Mohammad Shahid Khan v. Union of India

1. Introduction

In Mohammad Shahid Khan v. Union of India, decided on January 6, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the rigorous bail standard under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The appellant, Mohammad Shahid Khan, faced allegations of involvement in radical activities and affiliation with the banned organization ISIS. He filed a criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the trial court’s decision to deny him bail.

The High Court’s Judgment thoroughly examines the legal principles embedded in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and clarifies that courts are obligated to satisfy themselves that there exist “reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true” before granting bail. This commentary explores the court’s findings, the relevant precedents, and the broader implications for future cases under the UAPA.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Judgment ultimately dismissed the appellant’s bail appeal. The court held that there was significant incriminating material linking the appellant to a coordinated plot aimed at furthering the cause of ISIS in India. The evidence, including digital devices, social media communications, and witness statements, pointed toward a concerted conspiracy among the appellant and other co-accused to perpetrate a terrorist act against the Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur.

While recognizing the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the High Court cited binding Supreme Court precedents that require a stringent standard for bail under the UAPA. It reasoned that the accumulation of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the offense met the “prima facie true” threshold envisioned under Section 43D(5). Accordingly, the court refused to exercise its discretion to grant bail and upheld the trial court’s order.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The High Court cited several important judgments shaping the scope and interpretation of the UAPA, particularly:

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA (2019) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court explained that under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, courts must see if the prosecution’s material is sufficient on its face ("prima facie") to believe that the accused is involved in unlawful activities.
K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021) 3 SCC 713: Although the UAPA sets out stringent conditions for bail, constitutional courts retain the power to grant relief if there is inordinate delay in trial, placing personal liberty at risk.
Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 369 (cited as Thwaha Fasal): The Supreme Court clarified that “mere association” with a terrorist organization does not suffice for culpability; courts must look for intent and involvement in furthering a terrorist organization’s objectives.
GURWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2024) 5 SCC 403: This reiterates the step-by-step approach courts must follow in bail proceedings under UAPA and the importance of carefully perusing the prosecution’s final report or case diary.
Other Cases: The court also referenced Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India, Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Tawaha Fasal v. Union of India, all of which emphasize a careful scrutiny of the prosecution’s evidence without conducting any “mini-trial.”

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning in this case centers on the interpretation and application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The court explained that:

Under the UAPA, the burden to show a “prima facie true” case rests heavily on the prosecution. If the arrest is for an offense falling within Chapters IV or VI of the Act (dealing with terrorist acts and related matters), courts must defer to the materials compiled by the investigative agency, provided they are credible and uncontradicted on their face.
The expression “prima facie true” does not require the same rigorous standard as “proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” However, the evidence must be compelling enough to establish a strong possibility of the accused’s involvement in the alleged unlawful activity.
The court underscored that bail under the UAPA cannot be denied merely because the charges are severe. However, when there is voluminous evidence linking the accused to a planned terrorist operation, the court should be cautious in releasing the accused if all requisite elements of the offense are made out.
Although the appellant argued a violation of his constitutional rights on grounds of prolonged detention, the High Court noted that the trial was “set at full motion,” indicating that no undue delay had thus far been established. Thus, the court found insufficient justification to relax the UAPA’s procedural rigors.

3.3 Impact

This Judgment reinforces and clarifies the already stringent threshold for bail under the UAPA in the Madhya Pradesh jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court has allowed courts to intervene in cases of prolonged incarceration without progress in trial, this decision shows that where the investigating agency produces substantial information indicating terrorist activities, the courts are inclined to withhold bail.

Practitioners must take note that post-charge-sheet bail petitions under Section 43D(5) are reviewed through the lens of “prima facie true.” If robust evidence indicates conspiracy or active engagement with banned terrorist outfits, an accused’s liberty will be subordinate to collective security concerns. This reaffirms that broad probabilities—based on well-documented, relevant proof in the charge-sheet—will be enough to deny bail under the UAPA framework.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several specialized legal and factual terms arise repeatedly in this case:

UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967): A central law aimed at preventing unlawful activities, specifically terrorism and acts that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India. Section 43D(5) imposes a stringent condition for granting bail, requiring courts to determine if the case against the accused is prima facie true.
“Prima Facie True” Test: This standard requires the court to see whether, on the face of the evidence presented by the prosecution, there is a reasonable possibility that the accused committed the offense. It is a lower threshold than “proof beyond reasonable doubt” but higher than mere suspicion.
ISIS: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, designated a terrorist organization by multiple countries, including India, for its violent extremism.
Ordnance Factory: A strategic facility owned and operated by the Government of India for the production of defense-related equipment. Any planned attack on it falls under the ambit of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA.
Dawah: In the context of this case, “Dawah” refers to attempts to invite or convince others to join certain interpretations of Islamic doctrine. The allegation is that “Dawah” was used to recruit individuals to extremist ideologies.

5. Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Judgment in Mohammad Shahid Khan v. Union of India serves as a vital reminder that while constitutional courts remain empowered to protect individual liberties, the statutory threshold for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA remains tightly drawn. The court emphasized that:

A “mini-trial” of the evidence is inappropriate at the bail stage. It is enough for the prosecution to furnish adequate evidence pointing to the accused’s involvement in a terrorist plot to pass the prima facie threshold.
Even though an undertrial’s fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution are paramount, such rights will yield to the security imperatives of the State when the information strongly suggests active terror links.
Courts will show increased scrutiny when the alleged acts undermine national security, endanger public safety, or threaten the unity and integrity of the country.

Ultimately, this Judgment reaffirms the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the protection of society, and it underscores how serious allegations of terrorism are evaluated through the “prima facie true” lens of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Legal practitioners and defendants involved in similar proceedings must be aware of the high threshold for bail, the necessity to present credible evidence to rebut the prosecution’s case, and the role of constitutional courts in ensuring fairness even within a stringent statutory regime.