to note that the Special NIA Court has rejected his bail application
made on medical ground on merits. The learned ASG pointed out
that the regular bail application made by the petitioner is pending.
In this context, the learned ASG drew our attention towards the
provisions of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. Perusal of this section
would show that before granting bail, a case is required to be
made out. The Court would be required to consider whether the
rigors of Section 43-D(5) have been satisfied to grant bail. In sum
and substance, proviso to Section 43-D(5) states that if the Court
on the basis of the material has a reason to believe that the
allegations are prima facie true then, the bail shall not be granted.
In our opinion, in order to arrive at such a conclusion, the Special
NIA Court would be required to go through the entire material and
then form a reasonable belief. It is pertinent to note that along
with this petition copy of the charge-sheet has not been filed. We,
therefore, had no benefit to go through the charge-sheet and the
evidence. On prima facie analysis of the facts stated in the petition
as well as in the reply of NIA, we are convinced that the accused
has been prosecuted for commission of a serious crime. In the
facts and circumstances, as and when regular bail application is
made, the same would be tested on the anvil mandate of Section
43-D(5) of the UAPA. It is, therefore, apparent on the face of the
record that for the reasons and grounds stated in the petition, the
prayer made by the petitioner to send him under house custody
cannot be granted. In this context, it is necessary to mention that
liberty of the under trial is important. However, undue emphasis
cannot be laid on the aspect of liberty, when the same is required
