As per case facts, the appellant, a veterinary doctor, became offended when a shop owner (deceased) posted a message supporting a controversial comment in a WhatsApp group. The appellant then ... altered the deceased's mobile number, added an instigating message, and circulated it to various individuals and another group, aiming to expose and avenge the deceased. This led to a conspiracy involving co-accused to kill the deceased, which was successfully executed. The appellant's bail application was rejected, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusation against the appellant was prima facie true under UAPA. Finally, the High Court found the accusation prima facie true, citing the appellant's instigating message, subsequent meeting with a co-accused, and phone calls. The court considered the offense grave and heinous, rejecting the bail application.