NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI

under the first part of the proviso of no bail in such cases would operate. The fact that there is a high burden on the accused in terms of the special provisions contained in Section 43D(5) to demonstrate that the prosecution has not been able to show that there exists reasonable grounds to show that the accusation against him is prima facie true, does not alter the legal position expounded in K. Veeraswami, to the effect that the charge-sheet need not contain detailed analysis of the evidence. It is for the Court considering the application for bail to assess the material/ evidence presented by the Investigating Agency along with the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the named accused is prima facie true or otherwise. [Paras 29-31][1121-F-H; 1122-A-H; 1123-B-F]

1.6 The Designated Court had rightly rejected the bail application after adverting to the relevant material/evidence indicative of the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true. The issue of admissibility and credibility of the material and evidence presented by the Investigating Officer would be a matter for trial. The High Court, in the present case, adopted an inappropriate approach whilst considering the prayer for grant of bail. The High Court ought to have taken into account the totality of the material and evidence on record as it is and ought not to have discarded it as being inadmissible. The High Court clearly overlooked the settled legal position that, at the stage of considering the prayer for bail, it is not necessary to weigh the material, but only form opinion on the basis of the material before it on broad probabilities. The Court is expected to apply its mind to ascertain whether the accusations against the accused are prima face true. [Paras 33-35][1128-E-F; 1129-B; E-G]

1.7 The Designated Court rightly opined that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true. The order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent is reversed. In the present case, the respondent is not entitled to grant of bail in connection with the stated offences, particularly those falling under A B C D E F G H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and, instead, the order passed by the Designated Court rejecting the application for grant of bail made by the respondent herein, is affirmed. [Paras 36-38][1130-A-D] K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 655 : [1991] 3 SCR 189 – followed.