As per case facts the accused was in custody for two years facing charges under the NDPS Act and UAPA for his alleged central role in a transnational narcotics smuggling ... conspiracy using a front company to import contraband-laced talc His bail was rejected by the Special Court and the High Court due to the statutory bar under the UAPA the transnational nature and magnitude of the crime and concerns about witness tampering leading to his appeal The question arose whether the material on record established a prima facie case of conspiracy against the accused sufficient to attract the rigours of the statutory bail bar under Section D of the UAPA especially when no contraband was directly recovered from his specific consignment Finally the Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail finding that the accused's meetings with foreign conspirators creation of a shell firm and attempt to fabricate documents met the threshold for a prima facie case of conspiracy attracting the UAPA bail bar but granted liberty to renew his plea after six months