(1.) THE appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in R.C 1/2011 (NIA Hyderabad) which is being investigated by the National investigating agency now. Their application for regular bail having been dismissed by the Special Court for Trial of NIA cases, they have preferred these appeals under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.
(2.) THE allegations in a nut shell is that accused 1 to 3 were intercepted when they traveling in a car within the jurisdiction of Thaliparamba Police Station. They allegedly had with them counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 1000 denominations -5 bundles with A1, 2 bundles with A2 and two bundles with A3. Total amount of counterfeit currency notes was Rs. 8,91,000/ -. They were arrested on 18.9.2011 and Crime No. 711/2011 was registered at the Thaliparamba Police Station under Section 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was in progress. The accused continue in custody in the course of investigation. In the course of Investigation, allegations were raised against the accused persons under Section 15 and 17 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. As per order dated 3.12.2011 the investigation was taken over by the NIA. Investigation is in progress. Appellants/accused continue in custody. The learned Special Judge has passed orders under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 extending the period of custody to 180 days.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants (accused 1 and 2) have various contentions to advance. First of all they contend that UAP Act is not attracted at all. At any rate, the case against the appellants is so fragile and unacceptable that it cannot be held under the proviso to Section 43D(5) UAP Act that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellants is prima facie true.