Raju: he say, unless it pertains to defence of India, UAPA is not attracted. That is why, the embargo was not applied. Delhi HC said 43D(5) will not apply, and therefore

J Kumar: they say prima facie it does not apply. Your contention that bail should have not been granted?

Raju: Delhi HC's reasoning is that since does it pertains to defence of India, embargo will not apply.

J Kumar: if its based on same FIR, how do you distinguish?