Jagga v. Ve National Invest Investigating Agency
Case Details
CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) IN THE H THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED DATE OF DECISIO CRA-D-938-2024 (O&M) VED ON: OCTOBER 14, 2025 CISION: NOVEMBER 04, 2025 Jagwinder Sing r Singh @ Jagga ...Appellant Versus Ve National Invest Investigating Agency ...Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM: HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Present : Mr vocate, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant. for Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Speci Mr For the respondent. For , Special Public Prosecutor LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. The appellant-Jagwinder Singh @ The ngh @ Jagga, has challenged the order dated Jun June 06, 2024, passed by Special pecial Judge, NIA, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, ohali, whereby his bail application in tion in FIR No.136 of August 14, 2020 registered stered under Section 120-B read with S with Sections 109, 124-A, 153-B, 201, 204, 212 , 212 of Indian Penal Code (hereina ereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Sections 10,13 10,13 of The Unlawful Activitie tivities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter refe er referred to as “the UAPA”) and ) and Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to Natio National Honours Act, 1971 (here (hereinafter referred to as “the POINTH Act”) Act”) at Police Station City Moga, has has been dismissed. PROSECUTIO TION’S CASE 2. On August 14, 2020, at about 8:00 On t 8:00 am, two people entered the administrative c ative complex of the Deputy Commis mmissioner’s office, Moga. They went to the to the top floor of the office building uilding and hoisted one saffron/ SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 17 CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) yellowish colou colour flag on which the word “KHA HALISTAN” was written, on an iron pole that w that was already fixed there. Upon re pon returning to the ground floor, they went to th the pole on which Indian Nationa ational flag was fixed within the office complex plex of D.C office, Moga and cut its cut its rope due to which the flag fell on the groun ground. 3.
Facts
FIR No.136 dated 14.08.2020 und FIR 20 under Sections 109, 115, 121, 121-A, 124-A, A, 153-A, 153-B, 212 IPC, Sect , Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the UAPA and Sec d Section 2 of POINTH Act, Secti Section 66F of the Information Technology Ac gy Act, 2000 (added subsequently) ently), was registered at Police Station City, Mo Moga. 4. Upon investigation, it transpired Up spired that the said offence was committed at th d at the behest of one Gurpatwant Sing nt Singh Pannu, who is a declared terrorist by the by the Government of India and a and a member of an unlawful association/bann n/banned organisation by the name of “SIKHS FOR the JUSTICE”(for s for short, “SFJ”). The appellant us ant used to watch “SFJ” channel, posted his comm comments favouring “SFJ” on social social media and also took part in radicalizing and ng and motivating Sikh youths includi including his cousin Inderjit Singh (A-1) to join “ SFJ”. 5. Inderjit Singh (A-1) (appellant’s c Ind ant’s cousin) was one of the two miscreants wh who went on the top floor of D.C’s ’s office and hoisted the flag on which the word word “KHALISTAN” was written ritten and cut the rope of Indian National flag tie tied to a flag post on the ground floor. The appellant sheltered them and took took them to Anandpur Sahib in his in his Fortuner car. Furthermore, upon return from rn from Anandpur Sahib, the appellan ppellant also allowed them to stay in his house from se from 16.08.2020 to 17.08.2020. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 17 CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) IONS SUBMISSIONS 6.
Legal Reasoning
er section 173 of the Code is of asonable grounds for believing h person is prima facie true. (6) (6) The restrictions on grantin sec section (5) is in addition to the res any other law for the time being in any nting of bail specified in sub- e restrictions under the Code or g in force on granting of bail. (7) (7) Notwithstanding anything co and (6), no bail shall be granted and offe offence punishable under this Act, and and has entered the country unaut in very exceptional circumstance in recorded in writing.” rec g contained in sub-sections (5) nted to a person accused of an Act, if he is not an Indian citizen nauthorisedly or illegally except tances and for reasons to be 11. As per Section 43-D (5) of the UAP As e UAPA, no person accused of an offence publish ublishable under Chapter IV and VI nd VI of the UAPA shall, if in custody, be rele e released on bail unless the Public P blic Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of b ty of being heard, on the application m tion made by him for such release and if the Court Court, on perusing the case diary or th ry or the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C is of C is of the opinion that there are reaso e reasonable grounds for believing that the accusati ccusation against such person are prim prima facie proved. Section 43- D (6) further s ther stipulates that restriction for the for the grant of bail specified in Section 43-D (5 D (5) would be in addition to the re the restriction provided under the Cr.P.C or any ot any other law for the time being in for in force on granting of bail. 12. A perusal of the status report rev A ort reveals that no incriminatory material was fo was found against the appellant, at nt, at this stage. The allegation against the appe e appellant was that he had watched tched video of Gurpatwant Singh Pannu and indo d indoctrinated his cousin Inderjit S erjit Singh (A-1) to support the formation of sep separate State of “KHALISTAN” N” and aided/abetted hoisting of “KHALISTANI” ANI” flag on the top floor of D.C’s o .C’s office. Apart from one phone call on the day e day previous to the commission of o on of offence i.e August 13, 2020, nothing else ha lse has been brought on record to li d to link the appellant with A-1. Nothing else ha lse has been brought on record to co to corroborate radicalization and SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 17 CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) indoctrination tion of the youths by the appellant. N llant. No recovery has been made from the appe appellant, apart from his mobile obile phone. The appellant has undergone an a e an actual sentence of 05 years and s and 29 days and the end of the trial is nowhere where in sight. 13. Article 21 of Art the Constitution itution of India enshrines the fundamental rig tal right to protection of life and libe nd liberty which also includes the right to a speedy speedy trial. It has been held by the S the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that s that long custody by itself would would entitle the accused under UAPA to the the grant of bail by invoking Articl Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Cons e Constitutional Court would like to p e to prevent a situation where the lengthy and ard nd arduous process of trial become ecomes the punishment in itself. Reference can can be made to the judgment of t t of the Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra), wherein it has been held n held that long custody would be an essential fac ial factor while granting bail under under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of on of India provides right to speed speedy trial and long period of incarceration wo ion would be a good ground to grant grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punisha unishable under UAPA. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of The se of Vernon (supra) has held that serious allegatio legations against accused by itself can elf cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. T used. The relevant extract thereof is re f is reproduced hereunder:- 44. In the case of Zahoor Ah “44 refe reference was made to the judgme Swa Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu citing two earlier decisions of this citi Jag Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) an of ( of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 1 bail under normal circumstances bai tha that the nature and seriousness of t the the evidence, circumstances which a reasonable possibility of the pr a r bei being secured at the trial; re witnesses being tampered with; the wit r Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) dgment of Jayendra Saraswathi adu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, this court in the cases of State v. ) and Gurcharan Singh v. State C 118), the factors for granting ces were discussed. It was held of the offences, the character of hich are peculiar to the accused, e presence of the accused not ; reasonable apprehension of ; the larger interest of the public Page 7 of 17 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) or the State would be relevant fact or bai bail. Juxtaposing the appellants’ c and 21 of the Constitution of and allegations and considering the fac alle lap lapsed since they were taken into c the appellants have made out the Allegations against them no doub Alle rea reason alone bail cannot be den wit with the offences under Chapters IV have referred to the materials ava hav stag stage. These materials cannot justi app appellants, pending final outcome provisions of the 1860 Code and th pro factors for granting or rejecting ts’ case founded on Articles 14 of India with the aforesaid e fact that almost five years have to custody, we are satisfied that ut a case for granting bail. doubt are serious, but for that denied to them. While dealing rs IV and VI of the 1967 Act, we s available against them at this justify continued detention of the ome of the case under the other d the 1967 Act.” 15. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen In Sen (supra), the Supreme Court has held that ge hat generally pre-conviction detention tention at the investigation stage is necessary to ma to maintain purity in the course of se of trial and also to prevent an accused from be rom being a fugitive from justice or to e or to prevent further commission of an offence. O nce. Once it is apparent that a timely timely trial is not possible and the accused has suff as suffered incarceration for a signific ignificant period of time, the Court would ordinaril dinarily be obligated to enlarge the e them on bail as any form of deprival of libe f liberty must be proportionate to th to the facts of the case and also follow a just a just and fair procedure. A balance m lance must be made between the prosecution’s ri n’s right to lead evidence of its choic s choice and establish the charges beyond any dou ny doubt and simultaneously, the res he respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part-III III of the Constitution. The rele e relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “xx 37. In the case of K.A. Najeeb 37. SCC SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a us Con Constitutional Court is not strictl pro provisions of grant of bail in the 1 constitutional jurisdiction to relea con has has been incarcerated for a long Art Article 21 of Constitution of India. be distinguished by Mr. Nataraj o be of t of this Court in the case of Gurwin [2024 INSC 92]. In this judgment it [20 eeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 h of this Court (of which one of a party), has held that a rictly bound by the prohibitory he 1967 Act and can exercise its elease an accused on bail who long period of time, relying on dia. This decision was sought to aj on facts relying on judgment rwinder Singh v. State of Punjab ent it has been held:- Page 8 of 17 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) "32. The Appellant's couns ounsel has relied upon the case to back its contention that the of KA Najeeb (supra) to b jail for last five years which is appellant has been in jail own in the said case. While this contrary to law laid down compelling at first glance, it argument may appear com ance. In KA Najeeb's case this lacks depth and substance with a circumstance wherein court was confronted wit accused, other co-accused had except the respondent-accu to rial and were sentenced trial already undergone xceeding eight years therefore imprisonment of not excee consider bail was grounded in this court's decision to con e impending sentence that the the anticipation of the im ight face upon conviction and respondent accused might accused had already served since the respondent-acc m imprisonment i.e., more than portion of the maximum im ok it as a factor influencing its five years, this court took i il. Further, in KA Najeeb's case assessment to grant bail. F dent accused was severed from the trial of the respondent wing to his absconding and he the other co-accused owing 5 and was being separately tried was traced back in 2015 an had filed a long list of witnesses thereafter and the NIA had mined with reference to the said that were left to be examine is court was of the view of accused therefore this co letion of trial in near future. unlikelihood of completio case the trial is already under However, in the present ca ncluding the protected witnesses way and 22 witnesses inclu s already discussed, the material have been examined. As alr ndicates the involvement of the available on record indica ce of terrorist activities backed appellant in furtherance o terrorist organization involving by members of banned terr ntum of money through different exchange of large quantum o be deciphered and therefore in channels which needs to be appellant is released on bail such a scenario if the ap d that he will influence the key there is every likelihood th hich might hamper the process witnesses of the case which mere delay in trial pertaining to of justice. Therefore, mere e involved in the instant case grave offences as one in round to grant bail. Hence, the cannot be used as a groun n the behalf of the appellant aforesaid argument on th cannot be accepted.” 38. 38. Relying on this judgment, M is not a fundamental right. Seco is enl enlarged on bail, an accused enu enumerated in Chapters IV and VI the conditions specified in Section the acc accept the first part of this submiss acc accepted right of an accused und 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail fo 196 21 21 of the Constitution of India. Th (supra), and in that judgment, long (su t, Mr. Nataraj, submits that bail Secondly, to be entitled to be used charged with offences d VI of the 1967 Act, must fulfill tion 43D (5) thereof. We do not mission. This Court has already under the said offences of the il founding such right on Article . This was in the case of Najeeb long period of incarceration was Page 9 of 17 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) held to be a valid ground to enlarg hel of t of the bail-restricting provision of Act. Pre-conviction detention is ne Act (at the investigation stage), to mai (at tria trial and also to prevent an accus justice. Such detention is also ne just commission of offence by the sam com gra gravity and seriousness of the of com committed by an accused, detentio at the investigation and post-ch at san sanction of law broadly on these r dep deprival of liberty results in br Constitution of India and must be Con bei being reasonable, following a just dep deprival must be proportionate in These would be the overarching The Cou Courts would have to apply while t pre pre-trial detention, both at investig stage.” stag large an accused on bail in spite n of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 is necessary to collect evidence maintain purity in the course of ccused from being fugitive from o necessary to prevent further same accused. Depending on e offence alleged to have been ention before conclusion of trial charge sheet stage has the ese reasonings. But any form of breach of Article 21 of the st be justified on the ground of just and fair procedure and such te in the facts of a given case. hing principles which the law hile testing prosecution’s plea of estigation and post-charge sheet of Mr Nataraj's argument which 39. 39. As regards second part of M g paragraph, we accept it with a we have noted in the preceding par we Najeeb (supra) case would also qua qualification. The reasoning in Naj he constitutional court which is hav have to be examined, if it is the c for retaining in custody an examining prosecution's plea for exa stricting offences. He cited the acc accused charged with bail-restric a) in which the judgment of K.A. cas case of Gurwinder Singh (supra) in hed on facts and a judgment of Najeeb (supra) was distinguished Naj prayer for bail of the appellant the High Court rejecting the pray the dgment in the given facts of that was upheld. But this was a judgme was e the axis of reasoning on th case and did not dislocate cas ed in the case of Najeeb (supra). constitutional ground enunciated in con , another order of a coordinate On behalf of the prosecution, ano On 24, in the case of Mazhar Bench passed on 18-1-2024, Ben order, the petitioner's prayer for Khan v. NIA was cited. In this orde Kha rder of the High Court under ove overturning a bail-rejection order 967 Act was rejected by the similar provisions of the 1967 sim he ratio of the case of Watali coordinate Bench applying the r coo onsidering the case of Vernon (su (supra) judgment and also consi in this judgment accepting the (su (supra). We have proceeded in t id and applicable and then dealt restrictive provisions to be valid an res ns in terms of the proviso to wit with the individual allegations i ct. Thus, the prosecution's case, Sec Section 43-D (5) of the 1967 Act. T concerned, does not gain any so far as the appellant is conc so rming the basis of Mazhar Khan pre premium from the reasoning formin (supra).’ (su [emphasis supplied]. 16. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi S In t abi Shaikh (supra), the Supreme Court has obser observed that criminals are not born t born but made out. Howsoever SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 17 CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) serious a crime crime may be, an accused has a right t right to a speedy trial as enshrined under the Cons Constitution of India. Moreover, the er, the purpose of bail is only to secure the atten e attendance of the accused at the t the trial and bail is not to be withheld as a as a form of punishment. The r The relevant extract thereof is reproduced here d hereunder: “ “13. The aforesaid observations aga again, in several judgments, such a State of Bihar reported in (198 Sta Reh Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak rep In In the latter the Court reemphasiz and further held that an accused, and no option: no
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant Lea ellant submits that although it has been alleged th ged that the appellant was involved i lved in unlawful activities under UAPA but there t there was no recovery from the ap the appellant apart from a mobile phone and no in incriminating material was produc produced against him which could connect the app e appellant to any offence, more so, t e so, to any offence under UAPA. Apart from the the disclosure statement of Inderji Inderjit Singh (A-1) who is a co- accused in the in the present case, there is no e no evidence collected by the prosecution to c n to connect the appellant (A-4) to th to the commission of any crime. Furthermore, on ore, only 20 out of 149 prosecution wi ion witnesses have been examined by the prosecut osecution despite passage of more tha ore than 05 years of the appellant being in custo custody and the prosecution is u is unnecessarily dragging the conclusion of th n of the trial. 7. In support of his submissions, he h In s s, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of th s of the Supreme Court in the cases cases of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 21) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v en v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 S 24 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. on v. The State of Maharashtra and another, , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, She Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Prad Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed aved Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of te of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnL OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has bee as been held that long custody by itself would enti ld entitle the accused being tried unde d under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Art ng Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind of India. 8. Per contra, learned Special Publi Per Public Prosecutor appearing for NIA submits tha its that the appellant was involved in ved in anti national activities. It is the appellant (A lant (A-4) who motivated his cousin ousin Inderjit Singh (A-1) to join SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 17 CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) “SFJ”. During uring investigation a video of Gur f Gurpatwant Singh Pannu was recovered from from the mobile phone of A-4 whe wherein an announcement was made that any t any person who could hoist a “K “KHALISTANI” flag on any government bui nt building would be given $2500 in in reward. There was one call between the app he appellant (A-4) and his cousin (A- -1) on August 13, 2020 which was the link evi ink evidence between the appellant an lant and the offence committed by him. It is A-1 al 1 along with A-2 who visited D.C o D.C office building on August 13, 2020 to do a do a proper recce of the place and also had a telephonic conversation wi ion with the appellant on the same day me day. Therefore, the meeting of minds between tween the appellant and his co-accu accused (A-1) was sufficiently proved and give given the gravity and nature of the the offence, the appellant should not be enlarged larged on bail. The appellant along wi ong with the other co-accused had the common int on intention of committing terrorist ac orist acts and therefore, should not be granted bail d d bail due to his involvement in anti- -national activities, keeping in mind the provisi provisions of Section 43-D (5) of UAP f UAPA. DISCUSSION A ON AND FINDINGS 9. Thi This Court has heard learned co ned counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 10. At the outset it would be apposite At posite to refer to Section 43-D of the UAPA. The . The same reads as follows: f certain provisions of the 43 D. Modified application of cer “43 Cod Code.— (1) (1) Notwithstanding anything co other law, every offence punishab oth dee deemed to be a cognizable offen cla clause (c) of section 2 of the Code defined in that clause shall be cons def g contained in the Code or any ishable under this Act shall be offence within the meaning of Code, and “cognizable case” as construed accordingly. (2) (2) Section 167 of the Code sha involving an offence punishable u inv modification that in sub-section (2) mo shall apply in relation to a case le under this Act subject to the n (2),— SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 17 CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) the references to “fifteen (a) (a) “si “sixty days”, wherever they occ refe references to “thirty days”, “nine respectively; and res een days”, “ninety days” and occur, shall be construed as ninety days” and “ninety days” (b) (b) after the proviso, the fol inserted, namely:— inse following provisos shall be “Pr “Provided further that if it is no investigation within the said perio inv ma may if it is satisfied with the repo ind indicating the progress of the inv reasons for the detention of the acc rea of n of ninety days, extend the said per eighty days: eig is not possible to complete the eriod of ninety days, the Court report of the Public Prosecutor e investigation and the specific accused beyond the said period period up to one hundred and Pro Provided also that if the police offi und under this Act, requests, for the pu police custody from judicial custod pol cus custody, he shall file an affidavit s so so and shall also explain the delay police custody. pol officer making the investigation he purposes of investigation, for ustody of any person in judicial vit stating the reasons for doing elay, if any, for requesting such (3) (3) Section 268 of the Code sha involving an offence punishable u inv modification that— mo shall apply in relation to a case le under this Act subject to the (a) (a) the reference in sub-section ( tion (1) thereof— to “the State Government” to “the Central G ent” shall be construed as a the State Government or (i) (i) refe reference Government.”; Go to “order of the State Gove (ii) (ii) as a reference to “order of the C as State Government, as the case may Sta overnment” shall be construed the Central Government or the may be”; and the reference in sub-section (b) (b) Go Government” shall be construed as Government or the State Governme Go ction (2) thereof, to “the State ed as a reference to “the Central rnment, as the case may be”. (4) (4) Nothing in section 438 of rela relation to any case involving the a of having committed an offence pun of h 8 of the Code shall apply in the arrest of any person accused punishable under this Act (5) (5) Notwithstanding anything c person accused of an offence pun per and and VI of this Act shall, if in custod his his own bond unless the Public Pr opportunity of being heard on the a opp Pro Provided that such accused perso bail or on his own bond if the Cou bai ng contained in the Code, no punishable under Chapters IV ustody, be released on bail or on ic Prosecutor has been given an the application for such release: erson shall not be released on Court, on a perusal of the case Page 5 of 17 . SHALINI BHATIA 2025.11.04 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-938-2024 2024 (O&M) diary or the report made under se dia the the opinion that there are reason that the accusation against such pe tha