Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Section 43D(5)—Grant of bail by Special Court cancelled by the High Court—Appeal—Court has to differentiate between those who commit extortion on their own volition and those who are coerced to pay by compulsion—A perusal of Sections 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act would show that a prima facie satisfaction has to be arrived that acts which are committed by accused have been committed with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organization—Special Judge has himself distinguished cases of the persons who have indulged into extortion for furthering the activities of organization and the persons like the present appellants, who were government servants, and compelled to contribute the amount—It cannot be said that the prima facie opinion, as expressed by the Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or impossible—An interference by an Appellate Court and particularly in a matter when liberty granted to a citizen was being taken away would be warranted only in the event the view taken by the Trial Court was either perverse or impossible—On this limited ground, the appeals deserve to be allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439(2)]
[Paras 13 to 21]