Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Section 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.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 43D
-
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. The State of Gujarat Th. National Investigating Agency
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant is entitled for regular bail.
-
Mohd. Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi
Whether a purpose based interim bail can be granted to contest the election or for canvassing as the petitioner himself is one of the candidates.
-
V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam.
-
Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
Factors to be taken into consideration, under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while deciding Bail Applications for offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the Act.
-
Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Penal Code, 1860 who had been in custody for more than nine years.
-
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another
High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Penal Code, 1860.
-
Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.
The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged offences under section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957. The High Court…
-
The State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das
Whether the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to the case suffer from any illegality or…
-
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order passed by the Special Judge, rejecting the application filed u/s. 439 CrPC by the appellant seeking regular bail in a case registered under the Unlawful…
-
State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely
The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent.
- Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001
- Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Jahir Hak v. The State of Rajasthan
- Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency
- Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency
- Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb
- M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
- Bikramjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
- The State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling & Ors.
- Union of India Through CBI v. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav