Modified application of certain provisions of the Code
Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 deals with modified application of certain provisions of the Code. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and "cognizable case" as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. The Act came into force on 30 Dec 1967.
1[43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and "cognizable case" as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),--
(a) the references to "fifteen days", "ninety days" and "sixty days", wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to "thirty days", "ninety days" and "ninety days" respectively; and
(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:--
"Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days:
Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody.
(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that--
(a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof
(i) to "the State Government" shall be construed as a reference to "the Central Government or the State Government.";
(ii) to "order of the State Government" shall be construed as a reference to "order of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be"; and
(b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to 'the State Government" shall be construed as a reference to "the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be".
(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.]
Section 43D, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-6.pdf 2021-02-01 DATE VERIFIED (order-7 same date is ROP). Crl.A. 98/2021 (SLP(Crl) 11616/2019). N.V. Ramana / Surya Kant / Aniruddha Bose REPORTABLE. Isolate: UAPA s.43D(5) statutory bail embargo does not oust Article 21; the rigours melt where trial delay plus long incarceration make a speedy trial impossible; distinguished from Watali (mini-trial on evidence at the bail stage). Charged UAPA 16/18/18B/19/20 — do not pad those. Do not pad NIA Act. Watali leftover remains a pronouncement ROP — do not attach Watali.
On this section: UAPA 43D(5): the statutory bail embargo does not oust Article 21; rigours melt where trial delay plus long incarceration make a speedy trial impossible, distinct from a Watali mini-trial (Najeeb). Do not pad charged 16/18.
-
Gulfisha Fatima vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While dealing with UAPA offences, the court must balance the strict requirements of Section 43D(5) against the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and long incarceration without trial is a decisive factor in favour of granting bail.
On this section: Statutory bar on bail unless allegations are found prima facie untrue.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Stringent bail provisions for UAPA offences
-
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an undertrial prisoner has been in custody for an extraordinarily long period (over four years), the trial court has not framed charges, and there is no likelihood of trial being completed within reasonable time despite stringent statutory bail restrictions, the constitutional courts can grant bail on grounds of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The test for bail is whether the accused will appear at trial, not the seriousness of the crime. Bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The rigours of stringent statutory provisions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA melt down when the period of incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence and speedy trial cannot be ensured.
On this section: The Court held that stringent bail restrictions under this section do not completely oust the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. The rigours of such provisions melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within reasonable time and period of incarceration has exceeded substantial part of prescribed sentence.
-
Javaid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the stringent bail provisions of Section 43-D(5) apply, which requires the court to be satisfied on perusal of the case diary or report that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true before bail can be granted. At the bail stage, the court cannot minutely appreciate the evidence or go into intricate questions of whether the offences are made out, as such appreciation is expected at the trial stage. If the trial court has properly considered all aspects of the case and rejected bail, the High Court will not interfere unless there is illegality or perversity in the order.
On this section: Creates rigorous bail conditions for offences under Chapters IV and VI - no person accused of such offences shall be released on bail unless the court is satisfied on perusal of case diary or report that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 43D
What have the courts held on Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (01 Feb 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: UAPA 43D(5): the statutory bail embargo does not oust Article 21; rigours melt where trial delay plus long incarceration make a speedy trial impossible, distinct from a Watali mini-trial (Najeeb). Do not pad charged 16/18. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2021 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Uapa 43D, section 43D Uapa, section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (01 Feb 2021).
When did Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act come into force?
Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly called uapa or uapa bail, and cited as Uapa 43D, came into force on 30 Dec 1967, having been enacted on 30 Dec 1967. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions888 words
- 8. Power to notify places used for the purpose of an unlawful association570 words
- 7. Power to prohibit the use of funds of an unlawful association541 words
- 25. Powers of investigating officer and Designated Authority and appeal against order of Designated Authority498 words
- 15. Terrorist act423 words
- 5. Tribunal361 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.