The appellant’s bail plea under Section 21 of the NIA Act was rejected as the court found prima facie evidence linking him to highway blockades and supply disruptions that qualified as a “terrorist act” under UAPA. Examining call records and photographs, the bench ruled that burning vehicles and paralyzing essential services exceeded lawful protest under Article 19(1)(a), violating Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) to protect public property. While acknowledging protest rights, the judgment held such violent methods unjustifiable, noting their intent to cripple government functioning. The court emphasized that constitutional freedoms cannot shield acts threatening public order, upholding the denial of bail given the gravity of allegations. This reinforces judicial boundaries on protests, barring tactics that endanger essential infrastructure or state operations. The ruling balances rights with duties, excluding destructive agitations from democratic expression.
