Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anmolpreet Singh vs Ut Chandigarh on 17 July, 2026
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-1672--2024 (O&M)
RESERVED ON: MAY 22, 2026
DATE
ATE OF DECISION
DECISION: JULY 17, 2026
Anmolpreet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.05.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.07.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 20.07.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. PKS Phoolka,
Phoolka Advocate,
For the appellant.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with
Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor and
Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate,
For respondent-U.T.
respondent U.T. Chandigarh
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
The appellant has challenged the order dated July 16, 2024,
passed by Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh
Chandigarh, whereby his bail
application in FIR No.29
No. of 26.02.2024 registered under Section
25,54,59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 419, 471, 201, 120
120-B of the
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 1 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
Indian Penal Code,
Code 1860 (hereinafter
einafter referred to as “”the IPC“) and
Sections 17, 18, 18-B,
18 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station Sector-
36, Chandigarh, has been dismissed. The provisions of UAPA were later
added to the FIR on March 11, 2024.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it
has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities
under the UAPA, but except for disclosure of one Kailash Chauhan @
Tiger, who had allegedly stated that the appellant was a member of
terrorist Goldy Brar’s gang and had given shelter to the said Kailash
Chauhan @ Tiger and some of the co-accused
accused, there was no other
incriminating material against him. It is only the statement of Kailash
Chauhan @ Tiger alleging that the appellant and one Parw
Parwinder Singh @
Pindu have harboured the gang members of Goldy Brar and given them
money on various occasions
occasions at the asking of Goldy Brar which led to the
arrest of the appellant. There
T was also no legally
ally admissible material on
record to establish the involvement of appellant with any designated
terrorist which could even suggest that the appellant has committed any
offence and much less an offence under the UAPA.
3. It is further argued that the case of the prosecution, at best,
was that the appellant harboured Sunny @ Sachin @ Maddy Manchanda
Manchanda,
Umang and Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger at his flat in TDI City, Mohali and
gave them money on several occasions at the asking of Goldy Brar, a
designated terrorist.
terrorist Under Section 19 of the UAPA
UAPA, the punishment for
harbouring any purported terrorist was three years upto life imprisonment
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 2 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
and the appellant is in custody for more than two years. There was no
evidence to show that the aforesaid people were harboured at the instance
of Goldy Brar. Therefore, on the basis of prolonged custody alone, the
appellant should be released on bail.
4. He has relied on the judgment of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur
v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994)4 SCC 602 to submit that
there was no allegation or the material to argue that the essential
ingredients “constituting a terrorist act” as defined under Section 15 is
present in this case. When such material is absent, the accused cannot be
charged by invoking provisions of UAPA.
5. He has further placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex
Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713,
Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 498,
498 Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and
another,, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885
885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @
Pradesh, reported in
Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
Maharashtra and another, 1693,
wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the
accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Arti
Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Court had directed the State to file a comprehensive
affidavit after filing of the supplementary challan, vide order dated
January 15, 2026. Pursuant to the said direction, the State has filed a
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 3 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
comprehensive affidavit of Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that appellant along
with his co–accused is involved in anti
anti-national activities. The
prosecution’s case is that on the basis of secret information, two boys
were apprehended at around 11:45 pm on February 25, 2024 near Bus
Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The said boys were riding a white Activa
without helmets. Upon enquiry, they revealed their names as Sunny @
Sachin
n @ Maddy Manchanda and Umang. Upon search being conducted
one pistol and a live cartridge was found from the right pocket of
Sunny’s trousers
trouser and 03 live cartridges were recovered from Umang’s
trousers. All the cartridges bore the mark of “KF 7.65” on the back. FIR
No.29 was initially registered on February 26, 2024 under Sections
8. The prosecution’s case is that the co-accused Parwinder
Singh @ Pindu with the intention of harbouring the terrorists, had gone
to Chandigarh Railway
Railway Station and brought back Sunny and Umang
(members of Goldy Brar’s gang) to his flat in TDI City, Sector
Sector-111, SAS
Nagar, Mohali, in his Verna car. Thereafter, he shifted said Sunny and
Umang to his friend’s i.e the present appellant
appellant’s flat. Kailash Chauhan
@ Tiger along with Sunny and Umang, was then given shelter by the
present appellant. Upon disclosure made by co
co-accused Kailash Chauhan
@ Tiger, the present appellant-Anmolpreet
appellant Anmolpreet Singh was arrested on
February 28, 2024 from TDI City, Sector-111,
Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali after
being identified by Sunny.
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 4 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
9. T prosecution further alleges that upon instructions from a
The
designated terrorist Goldy Brar, co-accused Sunny, Umang and Maya
had done recce
ce at the premises of District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh
and Panchkula on February 12, 2024 with the motive of killing one
gangster- Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he would come for his court
hearing. Co-accused
accused Sunny used to communicate with terrorists like
Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through his ph
phone on Signal App and the
present appellant has harboured members of Goldy Brar’s gang
gang.
10. The prosecution has also relied upon the account statement
of the appellant for the relevant period to bring home his guilt in its
comprehensive
ve affidavit. Since there was a common intention to harbour
members of a gang belonging to a designated terrorist
terrorist, it is submitted
that the appellant should not be enlarged on bail before the witnesses are
fully examined
11. This Court has heard learned coun
counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
12. At the outset, it is appropriate
appropriate to refer to Section 43(D
43(D) of
the UAPA.. Section 43(D) of the UAPA is reproduced hereinafter for
ready reference:-
reference:
“43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code.
Code.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or
any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall
be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of
clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case”
as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a
case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject
to the modification that in sub-section
sub section (2),
(2),–
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 5 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
(a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and
“sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as
references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety
references
days” respectively; and
(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be
inserted, namely:–
namely:
“Provided further that if it is not possible to complet
complete the
investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court
may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor
indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific
reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said
period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one
period
hundred and eighty days:
Provided also that if the police officer making the
investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of
investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any
person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating
person
the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if
any, for requesting such police custody.
(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case
involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the
modification that–
that
(a) the reference in sub-section
section (1) thereof
thereof–
(i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a
reference to “the Central Government or the State
Government.”;
(ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed
as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case may be”; and
(b) the reference in sub-section
section (2) thereof, to “the State
Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the
Central Government or the State Government, as the case
may be”.
(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation
to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of
having committed an offence punishable under this Act
.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no
person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV
and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 6 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been
given an opportunity of being heard on the application for
such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be
released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a
perusal of the case diary or the report made under section
173 of the Code is of the opinion that ther
there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against such
person is prima facie true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub sub-
section (5) is in addition to the restrictio
restrictions under the Code
or any other law for the time being in force on granting of
bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub
sub-sections (5)
and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of aan
offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian
citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or
illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for
reasons to be recorded in writing.”
13. As per Section 43-D(5)
43 D(5) of the UAPA, no person accused of
an offence punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in
custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given
an opportunity of being heard on the application made bby him for such
relief and if the Court, on perusing the case diary or the report filed under
Section 173 Cr.P.C is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusations against such persons are prima facie
proved. Section 43-D(6)
43 (6) further stipulates that restrictions for grant of
bail specified in Section 43-D(5)
43 D(5) would be in addition to the restrictions
provided under the Cr.P.C or any other law for the time being in force on
granting of bail.
14. It appears from the comprehensive
nsive affidavit affirmed by Shri
Dhiraj Kumar, DSP (Crime), Chandigarh Police, that prima-facie no
incriminating material has been found against the present appellant.
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 7 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
Furthermore, no link evidence has also been established to connect the
appellant to the commission of any crime, more so, to a crime/offence
showing his involvement under UAPA.
15. The prosecution has not recovered any incriminating
material like mobile phone etc from the present appellant which will
show any link between the terrorist Goldy Brar and the present Appellant
and also the co-accused
co accused Sunny, Umang, Maya and Parwinder Singh
@Pindu. No
o link evidence is brought on record to show who had
deposited the money, at whose instructions it was withdrawn and to
whom it was paid. In case of Parwinder Singh @ Pindu, a CCTV footage
is obtained to show after withdrawing the cash, Parwinder Singh @
Pindu paid the same to co-accused Umang.
ng. Just because iin some
photographs the appellant was found together with Sunny and Umang, it
cannot be held that the appellant had the intent of committing a terrorist
act. Apart from disclosure statements of Sunny and Kailash Chauhan @
Tiger, prima-faci
facie no evidence has been collected against the appellant
by the prosecution. The appellant is in custody for more than two years.
16. From the comprehensive affidavit of Shri Dhiraj Kumar,
DSP (Crime), Chandigarh Police,
Police, it transpires that upon disclosure by
Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger and identification by Sunny, the appellant was
arrested on February 28, 2024 from TDI City, Sector
Sector-111, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
17. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the
fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the
right to a speedy trial. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 8 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under
UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitutio
Constitution of
India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where
the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself.
Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A.
Najeeb‘s case (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
ground to grant bail to an unde
under-trial for
an offence punishable under UAPA. It has also been held that the
embargo under Section 43-D
43 D 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 aforesaid judgment is as follows
follows:
“”17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5)
43 D(5) of UAPA per se 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,
proceedings, the Courts are expected to
appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the
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 alr already undergone has
exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such
an approach would safeguard against the possibility of
provisions like Section 43-D
43 D (5) of UAPA being used as the
sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of
constitutional right to speedy trial.
constitutional
xxxxxxxxxxxx
19. xxxxxx
Instead, Section 43-D
43 D (5) of UAPA merely provides another
possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in
addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the
offence, possibility
possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing
the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by
absconsion etc.”
etc.
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 9 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
18. The Supreme
Supreme Court in the case of Vernon (supra) has held
that serious allegations against accused by itself cannot be a reason to
deny bail to the accused. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced
hereunder:-
“44.
44. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra)
reference was made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi
Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in
which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases
of State v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Gurcharan
Singh v. State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), the
factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were
factors
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
accused not being secured at the trial;
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being ttampered 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 the
Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and
considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since
they were taken into 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 avai
available against them at
this stage. These materials cannot justify continued
detention of the appellants,
appellants, pending final outcome of the
case under the other provisions of the 1860 Code and the
1967 Act.”
Act
19. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen (supra)
(supra), the Supreme Court
has held that generally pre-conviction
pre conviction 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
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 10 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
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 procedure. 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
III of the Constitution. The
relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:
“xxx
37. In the case of K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3
SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of this Court (of which one
of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a party), has held that a
Constitutional Court is not strictly bound by the prohibitory
provisions of grant of bail in the 1967 Act and can exercise
its constitutional jurisdiction to release an accused on bail
who has been incarcerated for a long period of time, relying
on Article 21 of Constitution of India. This decision was
sought to be distinguished by Mr. Nataraj on facts relying on
judgment of this Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab [2024 INSC 92]. In this judgment iit has been
held:
held:-
“32. The Appellant’s counsel has relied upon the case
of KA Najeeb (supra) to back its contention that the
appellant has been in jail for last five years which is
contrary to law laid down in the said case. While this
argument may appearr compelling at first glance, it
lacks depth and substance. In KA Najeeb‘s case this
court was confronted with a circumstance wherein
except the respondent-accused,
accused, other co
co-accused had
already undergone trial and were sentenced to
imprisonment of not exceeding
eding eight years therefore
this court’s decision to consider bail was grounded in
the anticipation of the impending sentence that the
respondent accused might face upon conviction and
since the respondent-accused
accused had already served
portion of the maximum imprisonment i.e., more than
five years, this court took it as a factor influencing its
assessment to grant bail. Further, in KA Najeeb’s
case the trial of the respondent accused was severed
from the other co-accused
accused owing to his absconding
and he was traced ed back in 2015 and was being
separately tried thereafter and the NIA had filed a
long list of witnesses that were left to be examined
with reference to the said accused therefore this
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 11 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024court was of the view of unlikelihood of completion
of trial in near future.
ture. However, in the present case
the trial is already under way and 22 witnesses
including the protected witnesses have been
examined. As already discussed, the material
available on record indicates the involvement of the
appellant in furtherance of ter
terrorist activities backed
by members of banned terrorist organization
involving exchange of large quantum of money
through different channels which needs to be
deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the
appellant is released on bail there is every llikelihood
that he will influence the key witnesses of the case
which might hamper the process of justice.
Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave
offences as one involved in the instant case cannot
be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the
aforesaid argument on the behalf of the appellant
cannot be accepted.”
38. Relying on this judgment, Mr. Nataraj, submits that
bail is not a fundamental right. Secondly, to be entitled to be
enlarged on bail, an accused charged with offences
enumerated in Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, must
enumerated
fulfill the conditions specified in Section 43D (5) thereof. We
do not accept the first part of this submission. 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
commission of offence by the same accused. Depending on
gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been
committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of
trial at the investigation and post-
post-charge sheet stage has the
sanction of law broadly 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 proce
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
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 12 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
plea of pre-trial
pre trial detention, both at investigation and post
post-
charge sheet
she stage.”
39. As regards second part of Mr Nataraj’s argument
which we have noted in the preceding paragraph, we accept
it with a qualification. The reasoning in Najeeb (supra)
case would also have to be examined, if it is the
constitutional court which
which is examining prosecution’s plea
for retaining in custody an accused charged with bail bail-
restricting offences. He cited the case of Gurwinder
Singh (supra) in which the judgment of K.A. Najeeb (supra)
was distinguished on facts and a judgment of the High Court
rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant was upheld. But
this was a judgment in the given facts of that case and did
not dislocate the axis of reasoning on constitutional ground
enu
enunciated in the case of Najeeb (supra)
(supra). On behalf of the
prosecution, another order of a coordinate Bench passed on
18
18-1-2024, in the case of Mazhar Khan v. NIA was cited. In
this order, the petitioner’s prayer for overturning a bailbail-
rejection order of the High Court under similar provisions of
the 1967 Act was rejected by the coordinate Bench applying
the ratio of the case of Watali (supra) judgment and also
considering the case of Vernon (supra)
(supra). We have proceeded
in this judgment accepting the restrictive provisions to be
valid and applicable and then dealt with the individual
allegations in terms of the proviso to Section 43
43-D (5) of the
1967 Act. Thus, the prosecution’s case, so far as the
appellant is concerned, does not gain any premium from the
reason
reasoning forming the basis of Mazhar Khan (supra).
(supra).’
[emphasis supplied].
20. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), the
Supreme Court has observed that criminals are not born but made out.
Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a 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
hereof is reproduced
reprod hereunder:
“13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and
again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors.
v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 13 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC
225. In the
the latter the Court reemphasized 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 he is not
given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But
we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of
infringementt 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)
reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under:
“21. Before parting, it would be imp
important to reflect that
laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of
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 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.
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 PrisonPrisoner v. State
reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, 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,
tatus, possessions, dignity any autonomy 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 tto
crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 14 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024more 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 bbelongs
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 irreparable), 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 hu 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 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 circumstances, or the manifesta
manifestation of temptations
in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other
privations
privations.”
21. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @
Javed Ansari (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
al 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 statute, howsoever
stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to llean in favour of
constitutionalism and the rule of law, of which liberty is an intrinsic part.
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 15 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
Furthermore, it was held that the view taken in K.A. Najeeb‘s case
(supra) rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court was binding
on a Two Judge Bench like
li Sheikh Javed Iqbal‘s case (supra). The
relevant extract of Sheikh Javed Iqbal‘s case ((supra) is reproduced
hereunder:-
“31
31. In Gurwinder Singh‘s case (supra) on which reliance
has been placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of
this Court distinguished K.A. Najeeb‘s case (supra) holding
that the appellant in K.A. Najeeb‘s case (supra) was in
custody for five years and that the trial 25 of the appellant in
that case was severed from the other co co-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
protected witnesses have been examined. It
was 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.
32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized 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 provi
provisions
in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused
accused-
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
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 babail. But it would
be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail
cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of
our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter,
K.A. Najeeb‘s case (supra) being rendered by a three Judge
Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
Xxxxxx
33. xxx
Continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified
xxx
xxx.”
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 16 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
22. In Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India reported in (2024) 10
SCC 574,, the appellant was, inter-alia,, charged under Sections 13, 18,
18-A
A and 20 of the UAPA. He was arrested on July 12, 2022 and a
charge-sheet
sheet was filed on January 07, 2023. The relevant part of the
charge-sheet
sheet reads as follows:
“xxx
17.1 Bihar Police had received information about a plan to
disturb the proposed visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister to
disturb
Bihar by some suspected persons who had assembled in
Phulwarisharif area. On 11.07.2022 at about 19:30 hrs, on
secret information, a raid was carried out by the police
officers of PS Phulwarisharif, Patna at the rented
house/premises of Athar Parvej (A (A-1) and recovered 05 sets
of documents “India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India,
Internal Document: Not for Circulation”, Pamphlets
“Popular Front of India 20-2-2021”
20 2021″ – 25 copies in Hindi
and 30 copies in Urdu,
Urdu, 49 cloth flags, 02 magazines “Mulk
ke liye Popular Front ke saath” and one copy of rent
agreement on non-judicial
non judicial stamp by Farhat Bano w/o Md.
Jalaluddin Khan (A-2)
(A 2) with tenant Athar Parvej (A
(A-1) son of
Abdul Qayum Ansari. The recovered articles and a Samsung
mobile phone having SIM card of accused Md. Jalaluddin
(A 2) were seized in the instant case. They were related to
(A-2)
anti
anti-India activities.”
Xxx”
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that nothing
in the charge-sheet
charge showed that the appellant
ellant had taken part in orcommitted unlawful activities as defined in UAPA. No material was
produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted,
advised or incited the commission of terrorist acts or preparatory activity
activity.
Succinct reasoning leading to the grant of bail is reproduced herein
under:
“xxx
30. Therefore, on plain reading of the charge
charge-sheet, it is
not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 17 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024grounds for believing that the accusation against the
appellant of commission
commission of offences punishable under UAPA
is prima-facie
prima facie true. We have taken the charge
charge-sheet and the
statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a
mini trial. Looking at what we have held earlier, it is
mini-trial.
impossible to record a prima-facie
prima facie finding tthat there were
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against
the appellant of commission of offences under UAPA was
prima facie true. No antecedents of the appellant have been
prima-facie
brought on record.
31. The upshot of the above discussion is tthat there was
no reason to reject the bail application filed by the
appellant.
32. Before we part with the judgment, we must mention
here that the Special Court and the High Court did not
consider the material in the charge charge-sheet objectively.
Perhaps the
the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and
therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly
appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the
Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The
allegations of the prosecution may
may be very serious. But, the
duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in
accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an
exception” is a settled law.
33. Even in a case like the present case where there are
stringent conditions
conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant
statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification
that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute
are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made
out for grant of bail, the Court cannot
cannot decline to grant bail.
If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be
a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our
Constitution.
xxx”
24.. In the case of “Mukesh
“Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh and
another” SLP (Criminal) No.3655 of 2024,
2024, vide an order dated August
30, 2024, the petitioner was charged under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38 (1) (2),
40, 22-A
A and 22-C
22 C of UAPA and directed to be released on bail as he
was in custody since May 06, 2020 and 40 out of 100 prosecution
witnesses had been examined. The Apex Court observed that continued
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 18 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice as there
was no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. However, along with
the conditions that may be imposed by the Special Judge (NI
(NIA Act)
following two conditions were imposed as the conditions for grant of
bail:
6 (i) The petitioner shall report to the nearest police
station once every week and
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the trial
Judge on every date of the trial
trial without fail, unless his
presence is dispensed with by the trial Court, and shall
cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial.”
25. In a recent case in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of
Chhattisgarh,, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322
322, by a judgment
dated February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court set
set-aside the impugned
order passed by the High Court, rejecting the bail of the appellant. As per
the prosecution’s case, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle carrying
articles which could be ordinarily related
related to Naxalite activities. Upon
search being conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in
conscious possession of the following articles:
“xxx
4. The search was undertaken and the following articles
were recovered from the car alleged to be in co conscious
possession of the appellant herein:
herein:-
(i) 95 pair of shoes
(ii) Green black printed cloth
(iii) Two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metere
(iv) LED lens and
(v) Walki talki and other articles.
Xxx”
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 19 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
26. In that case, the appellant was arrested on March 24, 2020.
After filing of the charge-sheet,
charge sheet, the prosecution was only able to examine
42 witnesses and intended to examine as many as 100 witnesses. It was
observed that even after the passing of five years of the appellant being in
judicial custody, learned counsel appearing for the State had no idea
regarding time that would be consumed to complete the recording of oral
evidence. The Supreme Court recorded that in the aforesaid
circumstances, it was left with
with no other option but to get the appellant
released on bail despite the seriousness of the crime alleged.
Furthermore, it was of the view that the Public Prosecutor who was in
in-
charge of the trial, had to decide which of the witnesses were to be
examined and
nd who were to be dropped as no useful purpose would be
served if several witnesses were examined for establishing the same fact.
The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter:
“xxx
10. However, many times we have made ourselves very
clear that howsoever serious a crime may be the accused
has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution.
Xxx
12. The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion
of trial. It is expected of the Public Prosecut
Prosecutor to wisely
exercise his discretion insofar as examination of the witness
is concerned.
Xxx
14. In this regard, the role of the Special Judge (NIA)
would also assume importance. The Special Judge should
inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he inintends to
examine a particular witness if such witness is going to
depose the very same thing that any other witness might
have deposed earlier. We may sound as if laying some
guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay
and bail in its true
true and proper perspective. If an accused is
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 20 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years
in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be
said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of
the Constitution has been infringed. The stress of long trials
on accused persons-
persons who remain innocent until proven
guilty can also be significant. Accused persons are not
guilty-
financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period
of pre-trial
pre trial incarceration. They may also hahave lost a job for
accommodation, experienced damage to personal
relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable
amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found
not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being
stigmatized and
and perhaps even ostracized in their community
and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources.
15. We would say that delays are bad for the accused and
extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the
credibility of our justice system,
system, which is valued. Judges are
the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure
Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to
ensure that cases proceed efficiently.
Xxx”
27. In the present case, even if one assumes that the co-accused
were indulging in ‘terrorist acts’ or were participating in acts preparatory
to the commission of terrorist acts, relevant material connecting the
accused to advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or conspiring to
commit any terrorist act had to be brought on record to justify rejection
of bail especially after a long period of incarceration. However, no
worthwhile material has been brought on record by the prosecution, at
this stage.
28. The definition of a “terrorist
“terrorist act
act” under Section 15 is
relevant to be considered at this juncture
juncture and the same is reproduced
hereinafter:
“15. Terrorist Act-
Act (1) whoever does any act with intent to
threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security
[economic security] or sovereignty of India or with intent to
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 21 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024strike terror or likely to strike
strike terror in the people or any
section of the people in India or in any foreign country,
country,-
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances
or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal
weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemchemicals
or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive,
nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other
means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause –
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the
life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or[(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of
production or smuggling or circulation of high quality
counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other
material; or]
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a
foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence
of India or in connection with any otother purposes of the
Government of India, any State Government or any of their
agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any
public functionary or attempts to cause death of aany public
functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to
kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to
compel the Government of India, any State Government or
the Government of a foreign country or [an internati
international or
inter governmental organisation or any other person to do
inter-governmental
or abstain from doing any act; or],
commits a terrorist act.
[(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an
offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the
treaties specified in the Second Schedule.]
29. The charge sheet under Sections 120
120-B, 201, 419, 471 of the
IPC, Section 25/54/59
25 of the Arms Act and Sections 17, 18, 18-B and 20
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 22 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
of UAPA was filed on March 10, 2026 and only 01 witness out of 56
prosecution witnesses
witnesses has been examined till date. Learned State counsel
is also unable to give any reasonable estimate of the time that may be
required for completion of the trial. Therefore, the Court is left with no
other option but to release the appellant on bail.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by
the Supreme Court, especially when the appellant is in custody for almost
two and a half years and the end
nd of the trial is not in sight and
considering only 01 out of 56 witnesses has been examined, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned order dated July 16, 2024 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
al Court/Duty Magistrate concerned:-
concerned:
(i) He shall furnish bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties of
₹10
10 lakh each;
(ii) He shall surrender his passport in the Trial Court, if he is
holding the same and is still with hi
him;
(iii) He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every
date unless exempted by the Court;
date,
(iv) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer
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 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
approach this Court for recalling
this order and cancellation of his bail;
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 23 of 24
CRA-D-1672-2024
2024
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 his absence, Trial Court may proceed with the trial and he
shall not claim re-examination
re examination of any witness.
ix) At the time of release of the appellant, the concerned
SHO shall be informed.
informed. He shall appear before the SHO on
every alternate Monday till the conclusion of the trial.
31. 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
open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of
the bail of the defaulting appellant without any 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 appropriate application before the Trial
Court.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE JUDGE
JULY 17, 2026
202
shalini
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 24 of 24
