Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 February, 2026
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
102 CRAA-D-1594-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.02.2026
PREM SINGH
... Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.. Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present:- Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder,
Bhinder Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
CRM-45785-202
2024
This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 20
days in filing the appeal.
Heard.
The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be
in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and
decided on merits.
Consequently, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same
is allowed and delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 2024 (O&M) -2- MAIN CASE
The appellant has challenged the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby his bail application in FIR No.398
398
dated 28.07.2022,
.07.2022, registered under Sections 153
153-A, 120-B IPC, Section 13 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein
(hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’),, at
Police Station Baldev Nagar, Distrcit Ambala, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not
named in the FIR.
FIR. The appellant was arraigned as an accused after he had been
arrested in an FIR No.148 dated 15.07.2022, registered under Sections 153
153-A,
A, 153-
153
B, 120-B
B IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, Sections 13
of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’
only) and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities Amendment Orders Act, at Police
Station Kotwali, Patiala.
Patiala. It is alleged that a banner with objectionable words had
been affixed at a tree in Ambala.
Ambala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the
aforenoted FIRss,, he is not involved in any other criminal case. He, however,
submits that no recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other
incriminating material has been effected from the appell
appellant. The appellant is in
custody for over 02 years and 06 months. In support of his submissions, hhee has
placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of
India versus K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti Sen versus
State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCCOnline SC 498, wherein it has
been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to
grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied
ied
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -3-
upon the judgments
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
cases of Vernon versus The State of
Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq
Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Pradesh,, bearing Criminal Appeal
No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Sha
Shaikh
ikh versus
State of Maharashtra another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided
on 03.07.2024.
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which indicates
that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. He submits that
the appellant had received Rs.25,000/-
Rs.25,000/ through Western Union office sent by Gurjot
Singh from America.
America He conspired with co-accused
accused Harvinder Singh @ Prince in
order to spread the ‘Khalistan Movement’. He, upon instructions from ASI Gurwinder
Singh, submits that 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He also
submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled
to the concession of bail at this stage.
4. Heard.
5. The appellant was not named in the FIR. It is alleged that he had
received a sum of Rs.25,000/-
Rs.25,000/ for putting up an objectionable banner. He had been
arraigned as an accused after his arrest in another FIR registered iin District Patiala,
Punjab. No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating
material
rial has been effected from him and he has undergone an actual custody of over
02 years and 06 months
6. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to
protection of life and liberty which also includes the right to speedy trial, which is
sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of jjudgments that
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -4-
long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by
invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would
like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes
a punishment
shment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has
been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under
UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides right to speedy trial and
long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under
under-trial
trial
for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has also been held that the embargo
under Section 43-D
43 of UAPA would not negate the powers of the Court to give
effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the
judgement is reproduced hereunder:-
hereunder:
“It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like
Section 43-D(5)
43 of UAPA per sse does not oust the ability of
Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III
of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the
Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant
of bail but the rigours
rigours of such provisions will melt down where there
is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and
the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a
substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would
safeguard
feguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43
43-D(5)
D(5) of
UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Instead, Section 43-D(5)
43 D(5) of UAPA merely provides anoth
another
er possible
ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-
well
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -5-
settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of
tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the
accused evading the trial by absconsio
absconsion etc.”
7. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen(supra),
(supra), the Supreme Court has held
that generally pre-conviction
pre detention at the investigation stage is necessary to
maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an accused from being a
fugitive from justice or to prevent further commission of an offence. Once it is
apparent that a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of time, the Court would ordinarily be
obligated to enlarge them on bail as any form of deprival of liberty must be
proportionate to the facts of the case and also follow a just and fair proc
procedure.
edure. A
balance must be made between the prosecution’s right to lead evidence of its
choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the
respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part-III
Part III of the Constitution. The relevant
extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
hereunder:
“This Court has already accepted right of an accused under the said
offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail founding such right on
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb
(supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to
be a valid ground to enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail-
bail
restricting provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre-
Pre
conviction detention is necessary to collect evidence (at the
investigation stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial and also
to prevent an accused from being fugitive from justice. Such detention
is also necessary to prevent further com
commission
mission of offence by the
same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -6-
alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before
conclusion of trial at the investigation and post
post-chargesheet
chargesheet stage has
the sanction of law broadly on
on these reasonings. But any form of
deprival of liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable,
following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be
proportionate in the facts of a given case. These would be the
overarching principles which the law Courts would have to apply
while testing prosecution’s plea of pre
pre-trial
trial detention, both at
investigation and post-chargesheet
post chargesheet stage.”
8. The
he Supreme Court in the case of Vernon versus The State of
Maharashtra and another(supra)
another has held that serious allegation
allegationss against
accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The relevant
extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
hereunder:
“In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference was
made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal -vs- State
te of
Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions
of this court in the cases of State -vs
vs- Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253)
and Gurcharan Singh -vs- State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118),
the factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were
discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the offences,
the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not
being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be
relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the
appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of thee Constitution
of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact
that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -7-custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case
for granting bail. Allegations against them no doubt are serious,
but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While
dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967
Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at
this stage. These materials cannot justify con
continued
tinued detention of
the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the others
provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.”
9. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed
Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh(supra),
Pradesh(supra), it has been held that right to life
and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from
granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal
statute if it finds that the right of the accused-
accused-undertrial
undertrial under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions
would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal st
statute,
atute,
howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of
constitutionalism and the rule of law, of which liberty is an intrinsic part. The
relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:
hereunder:-
“In
In Gurwinder Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the
respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court distinguished K.A.
Najeeb (supra) holding that the appellant in K.A. Najeeb (supra) was
in custody for five years and that the trial 25 of the appellant in that
case was severed from
fr the other co–accused
accused whose trial had concluded
whereupon they were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in
Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that twenty two
witnesses including the protected witnesses have been examined. It
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -8-wass in that context, the two Judge Bench of this Court in Gurwinder
Singh observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences
cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and
personal liberty
liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be
restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive
statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the
accused undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has
accused-undertrial
been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not
come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute,
howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in
favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an
intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional
court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that
under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter
under
to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of
the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge
Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
Xxxxxx
xxxxx
continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. “
10. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of
Maharashtra, another(supra),
another(supra), the Supreme Court has observed that criminals are
not born out but made. Howsoever serious a crime
crime may be, an accused has a right
to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Moreover, the purpose
of bail is only to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and bail is not to
be withheld as a form of punishment. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced
hereunder:-
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -9-
“13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in
several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of
Bihar reported in (1981)
1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v.
R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re-
re
emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused,
facing prolonged trial, has no option:
“The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the
obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be,
to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.
Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused
come from poorer and weaker sections of the society, not versed
in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal
advice, the application of the said rule is wholly inadvisable. Of
course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and
yet
et he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour.
But we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of
infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he
did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.”
14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi
Delhi) reported in
2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under:
“21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail
bail,, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s
Ministr
response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had
recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034
prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069
lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest
4,27,165 were undertrials.
SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 2024 (O&M) -10-
22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at
risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High
Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State reported in 1993 Cri LJ
3242,
2, as “a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner loses
his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal
possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological
problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions,
dignity any autonomy
y of personal life. The inmate culture of
prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by
ordinary standards. Self-perception
perception changes.
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime,
“as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional
the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal” (also see Donald
Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 1940).
Incarceration has further deleterious effects – where the accused
belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of
livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as
loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the
event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irre
irreparable),
parable), and
ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”
Xxxxxxx
18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human
potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as
beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when
dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a
past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety
of factors is responsible for making
making the offender commit the crime.
Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value
erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -11-
circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of
affluence contrasted with
with indigence or other privations.”
11. In view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for
over 2 years, 06 months and the end of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be
released on regular bail subject to following conditions besides furnishing of
requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned:-
(i) He shall furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties of ₹1 lakh
each;
(ii) He shall surrender his passport
passport, if any, in the Trial Court, if he is
holding the same and is still with him;
(iii) He shall appear before Trial Court on each and every date
unless exempted by Court;
(iv) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
summoned;
v) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
or who is cited as witness;
vi) He shall not involve
ve in any criminal activity and if during the
pendency of trial, he is found involved in commission of any
offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency
would be free to approach this court for recalling this order and
cancellation of his bail;
vii) He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third
party right over his immovable property;
viii) He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of their
absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not
claim re-examination
examination of any witness.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D-1594-202
2024 (O&M) -12-
ix) At the time of release of the appellant
appellant, the concerned SHO shall
be informed. He shall appear before the SHO on every
alternate Monday till the conclusion of the trial.
12. In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned
conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it
would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting
appellant without any further
further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant
seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or
indirectly, then also the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail
of the concerned appellant by making
making appropriate application before the Trial
Court.
13. Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are only
for the determination of appeal seeking bail and shall have no bearing on the
merits of the trial pending before the trial Court.
14. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK
DEEPAK MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA)
18.02.2026 JUDGE
Swarnjits
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.02.19 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
