As per case facts, Gurmej Singh and Gurmukh Singh appealed the dismissal of their bail applications in terror-related cases. Gurmej Singh was accused of receiving and distributing funds from narcotics ... sales for terror activities, using proxy identities, and showing inclination towards a separatist ideology, with incriminating data found on his phone. Gurmukh Singh, nephew of a designated terrorist, was accused of receiving and concealing arms, explosives, and narcotics smuggled from across the border for terrorist acts, also selling narcotics and distributing terror funds. Both are part of a larger conspiracy to revive militancy and disturb peace. The reason for the appeal to the High Court is to challenge the lower court's denial of bail. The question arose whether the conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, which restrict bail if a prima facie case is established, are applicable. Finally, the High Court concluded that the facts on record prima facie prove the involvement of both appellants in terrorist activities, sponsored by cross-border elements, making them ineligible for regular bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act.