ORDER S.N. VARIAVA, J.- Leave granted. 2. This appeal is against an order of the High Court dated 19-9-2003, whereunder the respondent has been granted bail even though the respondent is charged with an offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). The respondent had applied for bail before the Special Court. The Special Court had refused to grant bail on the ground that the respondent was accused of a serious offence and that he had not been able to discharge the burden of showing that there were grounds for believing that he was not guilty of committing an offence with which he was charged. The Special Court also refused bail on the ground that there was a possibility that the respondent may abscond and/or he may tamper with evidence. The respondent appealed against the order refusing bail to the High Court. 3. The High Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent and granted bail. 4. Sections 49(6) and (7) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act read as follows: "49. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the court gives the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard. (7) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application of the accused to release on bail, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be released on bail until the court is satisfied that there are grounds for believing that he is not guilty of committing such offence: Provided that after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of detention of the accused for an offence under this Act, the provisions of subsection (6) of this section shall apply." 5. Thus, it is to be seen that in cases under POTA, no bail can be granted without hearing the Public Prosecutor. If the Public Prosecutor opposes, then bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of committing the offence. 6. Keeping this provision in mind, let us now consider the facts: The appellant claims that the respondent was required in a man-missing case. If the Public Prosecutor opposes, then bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of committing the offence. 6. Keeping this provision in mind, let us now consider the facts: The appellant claims that the respondent was required in a man-missing case. According to the appellant, the respondent could not be arrested for over two months in that case as he was absconding. His applications for anticipatory bail and bail were refused. According to the appellant he was finally arrested on 11-4-2003. According to the appellant, at the time he was arrested the respondent had in his possession a black-coloured rexin handbag. According to the appellant, inside the bag a country-made gun, two bullets, a booklet of the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army were also found. A seizure mahazar was prepared setting out what had been seized. Thereafter, a first information report under the Arms Act and Section 124-A IPC was filed on 12-4-2003. In the first information report, it was inter alia mentioned as follows: "As Soon as he was brought, a search was made, and it was found out that R.R. Gopal was found in possession of an unlicensed country-made pistol with ammunition and a pamphlet supporting TNLA, a banned Organisation, in a black handbag." Along with the FIR the articles, claimed to have been seized, were also forwarded to the Court. 7. An intimation of arrest was sent to the Manager, Nakkheran wherein it was stated that he had been arrested in a man-missing case and on search he was found in possession of an unlicensed revolver with ammunition and a pamphlet in support of TNLA. 8. On 16-4-2003 an alteration report was filed adding the offence under Section 4 POTA. On 17-4-2003, the Special Judge for POTA directed that the respondent be produced in court on 21-4-2003. The respondent was so produced and he filed written submissions objecting to police custody. Police custody was granted till 29-4-2003. 9. On 22-4-2003 the respondent filed, before this Court Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 56 of 2003 challenging the constitutionality of Section 4 of POTA. That writ petition is pending. 10. The respondent was so produced and he filed written submissions objecting to police custody. Police custody was granted till 29-4-2003. 9. On 22-4-2003 the respondent filed, before this Court Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 56 of 2003 challenging the constitutionality of Section 4 of POTA. That writ petition is pending. 10. The appellant claims that on 26-4-2003 the respondent took the police party to a forest and at his instance discovery of the following items was made: "A country-made gun, a Webley Scot 12-bore gun, twenty-three ammunition usable in 12-bore gun, two Kenwood transceivers, a telescope, 123 gelatine sticks and 150 electric detonators." 11. On these facts let us now consider the impugned order. The Court concludes that different versions have been given by the prosecution to the type of weapon allegedly recovered from the respondent. The Court states that in one place the words "unlicensed revolver ammunition and pamphlet" are used, in another place the words "unlicensed country-made pistol with ammunition and pamphlet" are used and in a place the words "a country-made gun with two live ammunition of 0.410 Musket and a booklet in support of TNLA" have been used. The High concludes that senior police officers would know the difference between "gun", "pistol" and "revolver". The High Court concludes that because these discrepancies the non-existence of recovery was so probable that could act on the supposition that the recovery does not exist. The High Court further holds that prior to the discovery, the respondent had given written statements before the Magistrate in which he had claimed that if the were given custody they would plant some incriminating material on him that they would force a confession out of him. The High Court concludes a person who had given such a statement to the Magistrate was not likely make a confession and lead the police party to the discovery. The High Court, also accepts the respondents case that as an investigating journalist he exposed the present Chief Minister and senior police officials and the had not been liked by the people in power. The High Court accepts his that the attempt was to implicate him in some matter or the other. 12. It is to be seen that at the stage of granting bail, the court does decide the merits of the matter. The High Court accepts his that the attempt was to implicate him in some matter or the other. 12. It is to be seen that at the stage of granting bail, the court does decide the merits of the matter. Of course, a prima facie view has to formed in the court in order to satisfy itself that there are grounds believing that the accused is not guilty of committing the offence charged with. However, such a prima facie view must be based on cogent material. The High Court has relied on alleged discrepancies of description of the weapon. One must keep in mind that the articles recovered have been sent to the court and are in custody of the court. It must also noted that the first of the documents, relied upon by the High Court was Tamil language. The other documents are in English. Some police officer translated it from Tamil to English. If some police officer wrongly translates the type of weapon one cannot conclude with any reasonable certainty there was no recovery. It is to be seen that under Section 4 mere posses not just of an arm but also of an ammunition is sufficient. Ammunition also been allegedly recovered. There is no discrepancy in the description the ammunition. Thus, at this stage it is difficult to sustain the finding on High Court that due to the discrepancies in the description of weapon non-existence of recovery was so probable that the Court could act on, supposition that the recovery did not exist. 13. Further, the statements relied upon by the High Court, are given the respondent had been arrested and recoveries were made from him on 11-4-2003. They are also after the charge under POTA had been added. It is not unknown that persons who are charged or arrested make self-serving statement before the Magistrate with the intention of using those in court proceedings at a later stage. Therefore, at this stage, it would not be possible to conclude that no discovery would have been made at the instance of the respondent. 14. Further, when bail is granted the court has to ensure that the accused would not abscond and/or that he would not tamper with the evidence or witnesses. The High Court does not seem to have applied its mind to this aspect at all. 14. Further, when bail is granted the court has to ensure that the accused would not abscond and/or that he would not tamper with the evidence or witnesses. The High Court does not seem to have applied its mind to this aspect at all. It has not adverted to these matters and made no provisions in respect thereof. 15. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.