Madras High Court· 27 August 2026

Do decisions in which the accused's overt act was distinguishable avail an accused under Section 43D(5)?

MOHAMED THALHA v. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY, THE CHIEF INVESTIGATION

CRL A.328/2025 · 2026:MHC:3496 · CRL A No. 328 of 2025
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice Sunder Mohan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Pr…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Decisions in which the accused's overt act was distinguishable do not avail an accused under Section 43D(5).

No. Decisions in which the accused's overt act was distinguishable do not avail an accused under Section 43D(5). In each of the cases relied on there were findings, based on the evidence recovered, that the activities of those accused did not lead to a prima facie inference that the charges were true; the overt acts here are distinguishable. (¶43)

Headnote

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss.15, 16, 18, 38, 39, 43D(5) — Bail — Prima facie true — Logistical support — Terror conspiracy — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Bail — Reasonable grounds for believing the accusation prima facie true — Held: Where the material prima facie shows that the accused was part of the conspiracy and supplied the vehicle used in the blast, the bar on bail operates. (¶30, 36) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.39 — Support to a terrorist organisation — Membership not required — Held further: Absence of material showing membership of a proscribed organisation does not displace s.39, which is attracted by support in the form of logistical assistance. (¶37) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.15 — Terrorist act — Intention to strike terror — Held further: An intention to re-create an earlier bomb blast and to attack places of worship falls prima facie within a terrorist act. Appeal dismissed. (¶34, 44)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 43In all the cases discussed, the overt acts of the accused in those matters are distinguishable from the present case. There are findings in those cases, based on the evidences recovered, that the activities of those accused do not lead to a prima facie inference that the charges are true. Not so in the present matter. Hence, reference to the cases is of no avail to the appellant. 15 Foot Note Supra (4) 16 Foot Note Supra (2)

Acts & Sections

s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.15 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.16 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.18 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.38 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.39 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MOHAMED THALHA v. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY, THE CHIEF INVESTIGATION — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is bail barred under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act where reasonable grounds exist for believing the accusation is prima facie true?Does Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act apply to support given to a terrorist organisation where no material shows membership of it?Does an intention to strike terror by using explosive substances against places of worship amount to a terrorist act under Section 15?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections