As per case facts, a police raid, based on information about smuggled arms and ammunitions, led to the recovery of significant quantities of foreign-made weapons and cash from the accused-respondents' ... premises. The prosecution alleged that the accused were key landing agents for smugglers operating from Dubai, charging them under the Arms Act, TADA Act, and Customs Act. The Designated Court granted bail to the accused, prompting the State to appeal, contending that the accused were involved in widespread distribution of arms and explosives in sensitive regions. The question arose whether the Designated Court was justified in granting bail by virtually acquitting the accused without properly assessing if there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were not guilty under TADA, and if the court should have weighed the evidence collected during the investigation. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the Designated Court had overstepped its authority by virtually acquitting the accused and weighing investigation materials while granting bail. The Court emphasized that for bail under TADA, the Designated Court must only ascertain if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is *not* guilty, without functioning as a trial court or prematurely giving the benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed, and the orders granting bail were set aside, with the accused directed to surrender.