Javed v. Ve unjab State of Punjab
Case Details
CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) IN THE H THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M) CRA-D-947-2023 (O&M) RESERVED ON: SEPTEM DATE OF DECISION:SEP PTEMBER 02, 2025 SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 Javed Versus Ve unjab State of Punjab ...Appellant ...Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM: HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI nd Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Present : Mr ppellant. Mr. Tushar, Advocate for the appe Mr Mr. Shekhar Verma, Add. A.G., Pu Mr .G., Punjab. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. The appellant-Javed, has challe The challenged the order dated September 20, 2 , 2022, passed by Additional Ses al Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, exercis exercising the power of Special C cial Court, whereby his bail application in F n in FIR No.02 of 05.02.2020 registe registered under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as to as “IPC”), Section 25 of the Arms Act, Se Sections 10,13,18,19,20 of T The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Ac Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to a ed to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station State Sp tate Special Operation Cell, District istrict SAS Nagar, Mohali has been dismissed. issed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Lea ellant submits that although it has been allege alleged that the appellant was involv involved in unlawful activities PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) under UAPA bu PA but except for alleged recovery of ery of one 7.65 mm pistol, five 7.65 live cartri cartridges along with one .315 bo 15 bore pistol, two .315 live cartridges and and one Samsung mobile phone hone from his wife-Tamanna, nothing else was else recovered from him. No hi incriminating material/evidenc vidence was recovered from the appel appellant which could connect or link him to to any offence under UAPA. A PA. Apart from the purported statements of ch s of chance witnesses-Kulwinder Sing er Singh @ Kala, Amrik Singh and Nishant Sha nt Sharma, there was no evidence col ce collected by the prosecution to connect the t the appellant to commission of a of any crime, moreso to an offence under nder the UAPA. Furthermore, he subm e submits that only 01 out of 40 prosecution witn n witnesses have been examined desp d despite passage of more than 05 years of inca f incarceration of the appellant. 3. n support of his submissions, he In he has placed reliance upon the judgments o ents of the Supreme Court in the ca the cases of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, eb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma ma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra a ra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine Line SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Mahar aharashtra and another, 2023 SCC CC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ A l @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari sari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnL OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam lam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra a ra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine Line SC 1693, wherein it has been held that lo that long custody by itself would entit ld entitle the accused being tried under UAPA t PA to the grant of bail by invo invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of I on of India. 4. He also places reliance upon State He tate of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and another, , (2000) 8 SCC 203, to submit tha it that even if 7.65 mm pistol PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) and five 7.65 liv .65 live cartridges along with one .315 ne .315 bore pistol and two .315 live cartridges were recovered from the appellan ppellant as well as one Samsung mobile phone recovered from his wife, still not till nothing has been brought on record by the p the prosecution to establish crimina riminal conspiracy between the present appellan pellant and other co-accused. The rel he relevant extract of the titled case is reproduc roduced hereinafter: “xxx “xx 12. 12. We are aware of the fact evid evidence of criminal conspiracy i and its existence is a matter of int and are are normally deduced from acts of pur purpose in common between the co V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Adm V.C crim criminal conspiracy there must circ circumstantial to show that there w two or more persons to commit an two mee meeting of minds resulting in ultim con conspirators regarding the comm where the factum of conspiracy is s whe circ circumstances, the prosecution circ circumstances give rise to a c inference of an agreement betwee infe com commit an offence. As in all oth pro prosecution has to discharge its o against aga circumstances in a case, when tak circ val value, should indicate the meeting conspirators for the intended objec con act or an act which is not illegal, by act her here and a few bits there on whi cannot be held to be adequate fo can with the commission of the crime wit has has to be shown that all means ado were in furtherance of the object o wer circumstances relied for the pu circ infe inference should be prior in time th of the offence in furtherance of the of t
Legal Reasoning
fact that direct independent cy is generally not available f interference. The inferences ts of parties in pursuance of a he conspirators. This Court in Admn.) held that to prove ust be evidence direct or re was an agreement between it an offence. There must be a ultimate decision taken by the mmission of an offence and y is sought to be inferred from ion has to show that the a conclusive or irresistible tween two or more person to other criminal offences, the its onus of proving the case d reasonable doubt. The taken together on their face ting of the minds between the bject of committing an illegal al, by illegal means. A few bits which the prosecution relies e for connecting the accused ime of criminal conspiracy. It adopted and illegal acts done ct of conspiracy hatched. The e purposes of drawing an e than the actual commission the alleged conspiracy. the accused beyond 13. In Kehar Singh v. State (De 13. tha that Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC conspiracy in India in line with E con ove overt act inessential when the con punishable offence. The most imp pun (Delhi Admn.) it was noticed IPC have brought the law of th English law by making an conspiracy is to commit any important ingredient of the Page 3 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) offence being the agreement betwee offe do do an illegal act. In a case wher alle alleged, the court must inquire wh independently pursuing the same ind together to pursue the unlawful ob tog ren render them conspirators but the la of conspiracy some kind of ph of agreement is required to be e agr agr agreement need not be proved. transmission of thoughts sharing tran sufficient. A conspiracy is a co suff con continues to subsist till it is ex frustrated by choice of necessity frus whenever any one of the conspirat whe of a of acts, he would be held guilty un Indian Penal Code. Ind tween two or more persons to where criminal conspiracy is whether the two persons are ame end or they have come l object. The former does not the later does. For the offence f physical manifestation of e established. The express ed. The evidence as to the ring the unlawful act is not a continuing offence which s executed or rescinded or ssity. During its subsistence pirators does an act or series ty under Section 120-B of the Xxx” Xxx 5. Relying on the State’s status repor Rel report dated January 19, 2024, Learned State c State counsel submits that the appell appellant was involved in anti national activitie ctivities. Based on secret information ation received by Harinderdeep Singh, the then then DSP SSOC, SAS Nagar, FIR N FIR No.0002 dated 05.02.2020 was registered a tered against the accused persons nam namely Dharminder Singh @ Guggni, Ashish shish Kumar, Arshad Ali @ Munshi unshi, Parveen and Sushil along with Javed (pres d (present appellant). He submits that s that upon investigation, it was found that one t one Ashish Kumar who had been been recently arrested by the Punjab police w olice was a close associate of accus accused Dharminder Singh @ Guggni who is ho is confined in Tihar Jail, Delhi bein lhi being a member of Khalistan Liberation Forc Force (KLF). The said organisation sation is banned under Sections 2(1) (m) and 3 and 35 of the UAPA. The appella appellant supplied weapons to accused Ashish Ashish Kumar who then supplied the same to the primary accused Dharmi harminder Singh @ Guggni. The said he said weapons are being used by the pro-Kha Khalistani elements and criminal minal gangs in Punjab which PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) disturb peace an ace and tranquility in the State. The appellant-Javed along with Arshad Ali @ M li @ Munshi and Parveen, all of whom f whom hail from U.P, had been illegally supplyi upplying the weapons to Ashish Kum h Kumar for onward supply to Dharminder Si er Singh @ Guggni. The said said weapons are used for commission of s on of serious offences like murders, da ers, dacoity, loots and extortion in Punjab inclu including target killings of promine rominent leaders. Therefore, in view of the grav he gravity and nature of the offence, h ence, he should not be enlarged on bail. Since Since all accused had the common mon intention of committing terrorist act/s, no ct/s, none of them should be released o ased on bail. 6. He relies on decision of Apex C He pex Court dated February 07, 2024 in Gurwin rwinder Singh v. State of Punjab an and another, (2024) 2 SCC Criminal 676, t , to submit that Section 43-D (5) D (5) of the UAPA Act puts a complete embar embargo on the powers of Special Co ial Court to release the accused on bail and that d that the exercise of general power t ower to grant bail under UAPA is severely res restricted in scope. The relevan elevant extract is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 25. A bare reading of Sub-sec shows that apart from the fact th sh Sp Special Court from releasing an affording the Public Prosecutor af heard on the application seeking he ba bail, the proviso to Sub-section ( complete embargo on the power co release an accused on bail. It lay re ‘o ‘on perusal of the case diary o se section 173 of the Code of Crimi opinion that there are reasonab op th that the accusation, against su co commission of offence or offences Chapter VI of the UAP Act is Ch ac accused person shall not be relea bond. It is interesting to note th bo section (5) of Section 43D ct that Sub-section (5) bars a an accused on bail without utor an opportunity of being king release of an accused on ion (5) of Section 43D puts a wers of the Special Court to t lays down that if the Court, ry or the report made under riminal Procedure’, is of the onable grounds for believing st such person, as regards nces under Chapter IV and/or ct is prima facie true, such eleased on bail or on his own te that there is no analogous Page 5 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) provision traceable in any other s pr Se Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act. I of of bail limitation adopted therei UAP Act. U her statute to the one found in ct. In that sense, the language erein remains unique to the 26 26. The conventional idea in ba ordinary penal offences that the or tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phr til is is the exception’ – unless circums does not find any place while deal do under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ un gr grant bail under the UAP Act scope. The form of the words us sc 43D (5) – ‘shall not be released’ 43 of of the words as found in section re released’ – suggests the intenti make bail, the exception and jail, m Xxx Xx n bail jurisprudence vis-a-vis the discretion of Courts must phrase – ‘bail is the rule, jail umstances justify otherwise – dealing with bail applications ise’ of the general power to ct is severely restrictive in s used in proviso to Section sed’ in contrast with the form tion 437 (1) CrPC, – ‘may be tention of the Legislature to jail, the rule. test for rejection of bail is 28. In this background, the tes 2 ejected as a ‘rule’, if after qu quite plain. Bail must be rejec r and after perusing the final he hearing the public prosecutor an ourt arrives at a conclusion report or Case Diary, the Court re rounds for believing that the th that there are reasonable groun true. It is only if the test for ac accusations are prima facie true fied – that the Courts would rejection of bail is not satisfied re pplication in accordance with proceed to decide the bail applic pr risk, influencing witnesses, th test’ (flight risk, the his position is made clear by tampering with evidence). This p ta D, which lays down that the Su Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, w bail specified in Sub-section re restrictions, on granting of bail estrictions under the Code of (5), are in addition to the restri (5 ther law for the time being in Criminal Procedure or any other Cr fo force on grant of bail. Xxx” Xx ‘tripod 7. Thi This Court has heard learned cou ed counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 8. The allegation against the appellan The pellant is that he was a supplier of illegal arms arms and weapons to co-accused As sed Ashish Kumar who in turn supplied them them to co-accused Dharminder inder Singh @ Guggni for commission of on of serious offences like murders, rders, dacoity, loots, extortion etc. PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) 9. One 7.65 mm pistol and five 7.65 On 7.65 live cartridges along with one .315 bore bore pistol and two .315 live ca live cartridges were allegedly recovered from rom the appellant and one Sams Samsung mobile phone was recovered from from his wife-Tamanna. The weap weapons were sent for FSL examination and and as per the report, they were i were in working condition and the cartridges w dges were live and usable. It has also s also been alleged that on the disclosure statem statement of the appellant, the recov recovery of aforesaid weapons were made. 10. From perusal of the affidavit filed Fro filed on behalf of the State, it transpires that t that the appellant has been apprehen prehended only on the basis of secret informati ormation given by one of the police of lice officials. The only evidence that has been br een brought on record at this stage ar are the statements made by the chance witn e witnesses. One chance witness has ss has stated that the appellant- Javed and co-ac accused Arshad Ali @ Munshi approached him for supply of weapons bas ns based on mistaken identity and rev nd revealed that they were sent by co-accused D used Dharminder Singh @ Guggni. T ggni. The other chance witness Nishant Sharma harma has purportedly stated that afte at after the arrest of co-accused Ashish Kumar, umar, the present appellant and co nd co-accused Arshad Ali @ Munshi were su ere supplying the weapons to the me the members of KLF. The third chance witness itness has purportedly stated that the t the appellant and co-accused Arshad Ali @ M li @ Munshi had offered him to facil o facilitate the supply of illegal weapons. 11. It appears from the affidavit that n It a that no incriminating material has been found found against him, at this stage. Furth Furthermore, no link evidence has been establi established to connect the appellant t llant to the commission of any PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) crime, more so, ore so, to a crime/offence showing his involvement under the UAPA. Apart f part from the statements of chance hance witnesses, learned State counsel was un unable to show any further evide evidence collected against the appellant conne connecting to an offence under UA der UAPA. The appellant has undergone an ac e an actual sentence of 05 years 02 mo 02 months and 30 days. 12. Article 21 of the Constitution Art ution of India enshrines the fundamental rig tal right to protection of life and libert 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 th ents that long custody by itself would would entitle the accused under UAPA to the gr grant of bail by invoking Article rticle 21 of the Constitution of India. The Cons e Constitutional Court would like to p ke to prevent a situation where the lengthy and y and arduous process of trial become ecomes the punishment in itself. Reference can b can be made to the judgment of the 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 f ential factor while granting bail under under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of on of India provides right to speedy peedy trial and long period of incarceration wo ion would be a good ground to grant grant bail to an under-trial for an offence pun e punishable under UAPA. It has t has also been held that the embargo under under Section 43-D of UAPA would ould not negate the powers of the Court to giv to give effect to Article 21 of the Con e Constitution of India. Section 43-D of UAPA APA is reproduced hereinafter for rea for ready reference:- f certain provisions of the 43 D. Modified application of cer “43 Cod Code.— (1) Notwithstanding anything c (1) any any other law, every offence punish be be deemed to be a cognizable offen clause (c) of section 2 of the Code cla as defined in that clause shall be co as d ng contained in the Code or unishable under this Act shall offence within the meaning of Code, and “cognizable case” be construed accordingly. PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) (2) Section 167 of the Code sh (2) cas case involving an offence punishab to the modification that in sub-secti to t e shall apply in relation to a ishable under this Act subject section (2),— the references to “fifteen d (a) (a) “si “sixty days”, wherever they occu refe references to “thirty days”, “ni days” respectively; and day en days”, “ninety days” and occur, shall be construed as “ninety days” and “ninety (b) (b) after the proviso, the follo inserted, namely:— inse following provisos shall be “Provided further that if it is not “Pr investigation within the said period inv ma may if it is satisfied with the report ind indicating the progress of the inve reasons for the detention of the rea per period of ninety days, extend the hundred and eighty days: hun not possible to complete the riod of ninety days, the Court eport of the Public Prosecutor investigation and the specific the accused beyond the said the said period up to one if that Pro the pol Provided also inv investigation under this Act, requ investigation, for police custody fro inv per person in judicial custody, he sha the the reasons for doing so and shall any, for requesting such police cust any police officer making the requests, for the purposes of y from judicial custody of any shall file an affidavit stating hall also explain the delay, if custody. (3) (3) Section 268 of the Code shall a involving an offence punishable un inv modification that— mo all apply in relation to a case e under this Act subject to the (a) the reference in sub-section (1) (a) (1) thereof— (i) to “the State Government” s (i) to “the Central Go reference refe Government.”; Go (ii) (ii) to “order of the State Govern as as a reference to “order of the Ce State Government, as the case may Sta t” shall be construed as a the State Government or vernment” shall be construed e Central Government or the may be”; and (b) the reference in sub-section ( (b) Government” shall be construed Go Cen Central Government or the State may be”. ma on (2) thereof, to “the State rued as a reference to “the tate Government, as the case (4) (4) Nothing in section 438 of the Co to to any case involving the arrest o having committed an offence punish hav e Code shall apply in relation est of any person accused of unishable under this Act Page 9 of 25 . PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) (5) Notwithstanding anything con (5) per person accused of an offence punis and and VI of this Act shall, if in custo on his own bond unless the Pub on given an opportunity of being hea giv suc such release: Provided that such ac released on bail or on his own rele perusal of the case diary or the re per 173 173 of the Code is of the opinion gro grounds for believing that the person is prima facie true. per contained in the Code, no punishable under Chapters IV ustody, be released on bail or Public Prosecutor has been heard on the application for ch accused person shall not be wn bond if the Court, on a he report made under section ion that there are reasonable the accusation against such (6) The restrictions on granting (6) section (5) is in addition to the re sec or or any other law for the time bein bail. bai ing of bail specified in sub- e restrictions under the Code being in force on granting of contained in sub-sections (5) (7) (7) Notwithstanding anything cont ted to a person accused of an and and (6), no bail shall be granted t Act, if he is not an Indian offence punishable under this Ac offe country unauthorisedly or citi citizen and has entered the co illegally except in very exceptiona tional circumstances and for ille ng.” reasons to be recorded in writing. rea The relevant ext ant extract of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: “ “17. It is thus clear to us that hat the presence of statutory res restrictions like Section 43-D(5) o (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional ous nal Courts to grant bail on gro grounds of violation of Part III of t I of the Constitution. Whereas at c at commencement of proceedings, t gs, the Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy ag app y against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will mel rigo l melt down where there is no like likelihood of trial being completed eted within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration and tion already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the p exc the prescribed sentence. Such an an approach would safeguard a rd against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D (5) of pro 5) of UAPA being used as the l or for wholesale breach of sole metric for denial of bail or sole rial. constitutional right to speedy trial. con xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx 19 19. xxxxxx Ins Instead, Section 43-D (5) of UAPA possible ground for the competen pos add addition to the well settled conside offe offence, possibility of tampering w the witnesses or chance of the acc the absconsion etc.” abs APA merely provides another etent Court to refuse bail, in siderations like gravity of the ng with evidence, influencing accused evading the trial by PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) 13. The Supreme Court in the case of The ase of Vernon (supra) has held that serious alle us allegations against accused by itse by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to th to the accused. The relevant extra extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “44 44. In the case of Zahoor Ahm reference was made to the judgmen refe Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nad Swa whi which, citing two earlier decisions of State v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 of Singh v. State of (UT of Delhi) Sin fac factors for granting bail under no disc discussed. It was held that the natu offences, the character of the evide offe are are peculiar to the accused, a rea pre presence of the accused not bei reasonable apprehension of witnes rea the the larger interest of the public rele relevant factors for granting or re the appellants’ case founded on A the Con Constitution of India with the a con considering the fact that almost fiv they were taken into custody, w the app appellants have made out a c Alle Allegations against them no doubt reason alone bail cannot be denie rea wit with the offences under Chapters I we we have referred to the materials this stage. These materials ca this detention of the appellants, pend det cas case under the other provisions o 1967 Act.” 196 Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) ment of Jayendra Saraswathi Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in ions of this court in the cases 962 SC 253) and Gurcharan lhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), the r normal circumstances were nature and seriousness of the vidence, circumstances which reasonable possibility of the being secured at the trial; itnesses being tampered with; blic or the State would be or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing on Articles 14 and 21 of the e aforesaid allegations and st five years have lapsed since y, we are satisfied that the a case for granting bail. oubt are serious, but for that enied to them. While dealing ers IV and VI of the 1967 Act, ials available against them at s cannot justify continued ending final outcome of the ns of the 1860 Code and the 14. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen (s In t (supra), the Supreme Court has held that ge hat generally pre-conviction detention ention at the investigation stage is necessary to ry to maintain purity in the course of urse of trial and also to prevent an accused fro ed from being a fugitive from justi justice or to prevent further commission of on of an offence. Once it is apparent parent that a timely trial is not possible and th and the accused has suffered incarc incarceration for a significant period of time, time, the Court would ordinarily be o ly be obligated to enlarge them PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 11 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) on bail as any f s any form of deprival of liberty mus ty must be proportionate to the facts of the case e case and also follow a just and fair p fair procedure. A balance must be made betwee between the prosecution’s right to lea t to lead evidence of its choice and establish th lish the charges beyond any doubt doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rig t’s rights guaranteed under Part-III III of the Constitution. The relevant extract xtract is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “xx 37. In the case of K.A. Najeeb v. 37. SCC SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a of Con Constitutional Court is not strictly pro provisions of grant of bail in the 1 its constitutional jurisdiction to re its who who has been incarcerated for a lo on on Article 21 of Constitution of sought to be distinguished by Mr. N sou jud judgment of this Court in the cas Sta State of Punjab [2024 INSC 92]. In held:- hel eb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 h of this Court (of which one s a party), has held that a ictly bound by the prohibitory he 1967 Act and can exercise to release an accused on bail a long period of time, relying of India. This decision was r. Nataraj on facts relying on case of Gurwinder Singh v. ]. In this judgment it has been "32. The Appellant's counse of KA Najeeb (supra) to ba appellant has been in jail fo contrary to law laid down in argument may appear com lacks depth and substance. court was confronted with except the respondent-accus already undergone trial imprisonment of not exceed this court's decision to cons the anticipation of the imp respondent accused might since the respondent-accu portion of the maximum imp five years, this court took it assessment to grant bail. case the trial of the respon from the other co-accused and he was traced back separately tried thereafter long list of witnesses that with reference to the said unsel has relied upon the case to back its contention that the ail for last five years which is wn in the said case. While this compelling at first glance, it nce. In KA Najeeb's case this with a circumstance wherein ccused, other co-accused had ial and were sentenced to ceeding eight years therefore consider bail was grounded in impending sentence that the ght face upon conviction and accused had already served imprisonment i.e., more than ok it as a factor influencing its ail. Further, in KA Najeeb's pondent accused was severed sed owing to his absconding ack in 2015 and was being fter and the NIA had filed a that were left to be examined said accused therefore this Page 12 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) of unlikelihood of completion court was of the view of u However, in the present case of trial in near future. How nder way and 22 witnesses the trial is already under cted witnesses have been including the protected the material y discussed, examined. As already d dicates the involvement of the available on record indicat e of terrorist activities backed appellant in furtherance of terrorist organization nned by members of banned f large quantum of money involving exchange of la annels which needs to be through different channe ore in such a scenario if the deciphered and therefore i n bail there is every likelihood appellant is released on bai the key witnesses of the case that he will influence the k justice. the process of th r which might hamper in trial pertaining to grave Therefore, mere delay in ed in the instant case cannot offences as one involved in to grant bail. Hence, the be used as a ground to the behalf of the appellant aforesaid argument on the cannot be accepted.” 38. 38. Relying on this judgment, M bai bail is not a fundamental right. Sec enlarged on bail, an accused enl enu enumerated in Chapters IV and V fulf fulfill the conditions specified in Se do not accept the first part of thi do has has already accepted right of an offe offences of the 1967 Act to be en such right on Article 21 of the C suc was was in the case of Najeeb (supra), a per period of incarceration was held enlarge an accused on bail in sp enl provision of Section 43D (5) of the pro det to col is necessary detention investigation stage), to maintain pu inv and also to prevent an accused and just justice. Such detention is also nec commission of offence by the sam com gravity and seriousness of the offe gra com committed by an accused, detent trial at the investigation and post- tria sanction of law broadly on these re san dep deprival of liberty results in bre Con Constitution of India and must be being reasonable, following a just bei suc such deprival must be proportiona cas case. These would be the overarch aw Courts would have to apply w law ple plea of pre-trial detention, both a charge sheet stage.” cha nt, Mr. Nataraj, submits that . Secondly, to be entitled to be sed charged with offences nd VI of the 1967 Act, must in Section 43D (5) thereof. We f this submission. This Court f an accused under the said e enlarged on bail founding e Constitution of India. This ra), and in that judgment, long held to be a valid ground to n spite of the bail-restricting f the 1967 Act. Pre-conviction the in purity in the course of trial sed from being fugitive from necessary to prevent further same accused. Depending on offence alleged to have been tention before conclusion of -charge sheet stage has the se reasonings. But any form of breach of Article 21 of the t be justified on the ground of just and fair procedure and tionate in the facts of a given rarching principles which the ly while testing prosecution’s th at investigation and post- collect evidence (at Page 13 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) if it is 39. 39. As regards second part of whi which we have noted in the preced it with a qualification. The reas it w to be e case would also have cas con constitutional court which is exam for retaining in custody an accu for restricting offences. He cited res Sin Singh (supra) in which the judgme was distinguished on facts and a ju was rejecting the prayer for bail of the a reje this this was a judgment in the given f not dislocate the axis of reasoning not enunciated in the case of Najeeb ( enu pro prosecution, another order of a coo 18 18-1-2024, in the case of Mazhar this order, the petitioner's prayer this reje rejection order of the High Court u the the 1967 Act was rejected by the co the ratio of the case of Watali (s the con considering the case of Vernon (su in in this judgment accepting the re valid and applicable and then d val alle allegations in terms of the proviso 196 1967 Act. Thus, the prosecution appellant is concerned, does not ga app reasoning forming the basis of Maz rea t of Mr Nataraj's argument eceding paragraph, we accept reasoning in Najeeb (supra) the be examined, examining prosecution's plea accused charged with bail- the case of Gurwinder gment of K.A. Najeeb (supra) a judgment of the High Court the appellant was upheld. But ven facts of that case and did ning on constitutional ground eeb (supra). On behalf of the a coordinate Bench passed on har Khan v. NIA was cited. In ayer for overturning a bail- urt under similar provisions of he coordinate Bench applying (supra) judgment and also (supra). We have proceeded e restrictive provisions to be en dealt with the individual viso to Section 43-D (5) of the ution's case, so far as the ot gain any premium from the Mazhar Khan (supra).’ [emphasis supplied]. 15. The case of Gurwinder Sing The Singh (supra) was clearly distinguished in hed in the present case under disc r discussion and it has been observed that in that in the said case the trial was alr as already undergoing and 22 witnesses, inclu , including the protected witnesses had ses had already been examined. The observation rvations made in Gurwinder Singh’s gh’s case (supra), therefore, had to be restric restricted to the context in which they h they were made. 16. In the case of Javed Gulam N In Nabi Shaikh (supra), the Supreme Court Court has observed that criminals are als are not born but made out. Howsoever seri er serious a crime may be, an accuse accused has a right to a speedy trial as enshrine shrined under the Constitution of Indi of India. Moreover, the purpose PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 14 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) of bail is only to only to secure the attendance of the ac the accused at the trial and bail is not to be w be withheld as a form of punishme nishment. The relevant extract thereof is reprod reproduced hereunder: “13. The aforesaid observations “13 again, in several judgments, such a aga v. S v. State of Bihar reported in (198 Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak re Reh 225. In the latter the Court reemph 225 trial, and further held that an ac tria tria ial, has no option: ons have resonated, time and ch as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul k reported in (1992) 1 SCC mphasized the right to speedy n accused, facing prolonged “The State or complaina thus, the obligation of the as the case may be, to pro reasonable promptitude. country, where the large m from poorer and weaker se versed in the ways of law, w competent legal advice, th rule is wholly inadvisable. O if an accused demands spee given one, may be a relevan we cannot disentitle an acc infringement of his right ground that he did not ask f trial.” In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain 14. 14. rep reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Co “21. Before parting, it would b laws which impose stringent bail, may be necessary in pu are not concluded in time, the individual is immeasurable. J their living conditions, more According to the Union Hom Parliament, the National Cri recorded that as on 31st Dece prisoners were lodged in jails 4,25,069 lakhs in the country convicts; the rest 4,27,165 wer in ainant prosecutes him. It is, the State or the complainant, o proceed with the case with this de. Particularly, ge majority of accused come er sections of the society, not w, where they do not often get e, the application of the said le. Of course, in a given case, speedy trial and yet he is not evant factor in his favour. But accused from complaining of ight to speedy trial on the ask for or insist upon a speedy ssain v. State (NCT of Delhi) is Court observed as under: ld be important to reflect that gent conditions for grant of n public interest; yet, if trials , the injustice wrecked on the le. Jails are overcrowded and ore often than not, appalling. Home Ministry’s response to Crime Records Bureau had ecember 2021, over 5,54,034 jails against total capacity of untry. Of these 122,852 were were undertrials. imprisonment, is that inmates 22. The danger of unjust impr ion” a term described by the are at risk of “prisonisation” A Convict Prisoner v. State Kerala High Court in A C LJ 3242, as “a radical in 1993 Cri LJ reported loses his the prisoner t y transformation” whereby a number. He loses personal identity. He is known by a nu no personal relationships. possessions. He has no Page 15 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) Psychological problems resu status, possessions, dignity a life. The inmate culture of dreadful. The prisoner beco standards. Self-perception cha result from loss of freedom, ty any autonomy of personal of prison turns out to be becomes hostile by ordinary changes. 23. There is a further danger crime, “as crime not only t more professional the crime, m criminal” (also see Donald Community’ published in 1 further deleterious effects - w to the weakest economic st livelihood, and in several cas as well as loss of family bo society. The courts therefore these aspects (because in the loss to the accused is irrep trials – especially in cases, w stringent provisions, are ta speedily.” ger of the prisoner turning to nly turns admirable, but the e, more honour is paid to the ald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison in 1940). Incarceration has where the accused belongs c strata: immediate loss of l cases, scattering of families y bonds and alienation from fore, have to be sensitive to the event of an acquittal, the rreparable), and ensure that es, where special laws enact e taken up and concluded Xxxxxxx 18. 18. Criminals are not born out pot potential in everyone is good and criminal as beyond redemption. Th crim is o is often missed when dealing with adu adult. Indeed, every saint has a future. When a crime is committe futu res responsible for making the offender fac factors may be social and econom value erosion or parental neglect; val stress of circumstances, or the ma stre in a in a milieu of affluence contrasted privations.” priv out but made. The human and so, never write off any n. This humanist fundamental with delinquents, juvenile and s a past and every sinner a itted, a variety of factors is nder commit the crime. Those nomic, may be, the result of lect; may be, because of the manifestation of temptations asted with indigence or other 17. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqb In Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari (supra), it has been held that r that right to life and personal liberty enshrine nshrined under Article 21 of the C the Constitution of India is overarching and ng and sacrosanct. A Constitutional C onal Court cannot be restrained from granting nting bail to an accused on accoun ccount of restrictive statutory provisions in a s in a penal statute if it finds that t that the right of the accused- undertrial unde under Article 21 of the Constitu onstitution of India has been PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 16 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) infringed. In tha In that event, such statutory restrictio trictions would not come in the way. Even in t n in the case of interpretation of a of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it ma it may be, a constitutional court h ourt has to lean in favour of constitutionalism onalism and the rule of law, of which l hich liberty is an intrinsic part. Furthermore, ore, it was held that the view taken taken in K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) rendered ndered by a three Judge Bench of the of the Apex Court was binding on a Two Judge Judge Bench like Gurwinder Singh’ ingh’s case (supra) or Sheikh Javed Iqbal’s case (supra). The relevant extrac extract of Sheikh Javed Iqbal’s case (supra) is r is reproduced hereunder:- “31 In Gurwinder Singh’s case 31. has been placed by the responden has this this Court distinguished K.A. Naje tha that the appellant in K.A. Najee custody for five years and that the t cus that case was severed from the oth tha they were sentenced the had had concluded whereupon imprisonment of eight years; but imp tria trial was already underway and t inc including the protected witnesses was in that context, the two Judg was that mere delay tha Gu Gurwinder Singh observed per pertaining to grave offences canno grant bail. gra ase (supra) on which reliance ndent, a two Judge Bench of Najeeb’s case (supra) holding ajeeb’s case (supra) was in the trial 25 of the appellant in other co-accused whose trial to but in Gurwinder Singh, the nd that twenty two witnesses sses have been examined. It Judge Bench of this Court in trial annot be used as a ground to in 32. 32. This Court has, time and aga to life and personal liberty enshrin to l Constitution of India is overarc Con con constitutional court cannot be rest to an accused on account of restri to a in a penal statute if it finds that in und undertrial under Article 21 of the been infringed. In that event, su bee the way. would not come wou inte interpretation of a penal statute, h be, be, a constitutional court has constitutionalism and the rule of l con intr intrinsic part. In the given facts con constitutional court may decline to be very wrong to say that under be can cannot be granted. It would run co our constitutional jurisprudence. I our d again, emphasized that right hrined under Article 21 of the rarching and sacrosanct. A restrained from granting bail estrictive statutory provisions hat the right of the accused- the Constitution of India has t, such statutory restrictions the case of ay. Even te, howsoever stringent it may has to lean in favour of of law of which liberty is an acts of a particular case, a ne to grant bail. But it would der a particular statute, bail n counter to the very grain of ce. In any view of the matter, in in Page 17 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) being r K.A Ben Bench is binding on a Bench of two xxx xxxxxx 33. 33. Continued incarceration of the app Con xxx.” xxx xxx ing rendered by a three Judge f two Judges like us. appellant cannot be justified 18. In Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of In In of India reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574, the a , the appellant was, inter-alia, charge charged under Sections 13, 18, 18-A and 20 o 20 of the UAPA. He was arrested rested on July 12, 2022 and a charge-sheet wa eet was filed on January 07, 2023. 2023. The relevant part of the charge-sheet rea eet reads as follows: “xxx “xx 17.1 Bihar Police had received in 17. dist disturb the proposed visit of Ho Bih Bihar by some suspected persons Phulwarisharif area. On 11.07.202 Phu sec secret information, a raid was c offi officers of PS Phulwarisharif, house/premises of Athar Parvej (A hou of documents “India 2047 Toward of Inte for C Internal Document: Not “Popular Front of India 20-2-202 “Po and and 30 copies in Urdu, 49 cloth fla ke ke liye Popular Front ke saath” agreement on non-judicial stamp agr Jalaluddin Khan (A-2) with tenant Jal Abd Abdul Qayum Ansari. The recovere mobile phone having SIM card of mo (A-2) were seized in the instant ca (A ant anti-India activities.” Xxx” Xxx ed information about a plan to Hon’ble Prime Minister to sons who had assembled in .2022 at about 19:30 hrs, on as carried out by the police arif, Patna at the rented j (A-1) and recovered 05 sets wards Rule of Islamic India, r Circulation”, Pamphlets 2021” – 25 copies in Hindi th flags, 02 magazines “Mulk ath” and one copy of rent mp by Farhat Bano w/o Md. ant Athar Parvej (A-1) son of vered articles and a Samsung d of accused Md. Jalaluddin nt case. They were related to 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was o The was of the opinion that nothing in the charge arge-sheet showed that the appellan ppellant had taken part in or committed unla d unlawful activities as defined in U d in UAPA. No material was produced on re on record to show that the appel appellant advocated, abetted, advised or incite r incited the commission of terrorist ac rist acts or preparatory activity. PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 18 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) Succinct reason reasoning leading to the grant of b t of bail is reproduced herein under: “xxx “xx 30. Therefore, on plain reading 30. not possible to record a conclusion not gro grounds for believing that the appellant of commission of offence app is prima-facie true. We have taken is p stat statement of witness Z as they a mini-trial. Looking at what we min impossible to record a prima-faci imp rea reasonable grounds for believing th the the appellant of commission of of prima-facie true. No antecedents o prim brought on record. bro ding of the charge-sheet, it is sion that there are reasonable the accusation against the ences punishable under UAPA aken the charge-sheet and the ey are without conducting a we have held earlier, it is facie finding that there were ng that the accusation against of offences under UAPA was nts of the appellant have been 31. The upshot of the above dis 31. no no reason to reject the bail a appellant. app e discussion is that there was il application filed by the 32. 32. Before we part with the jud her here that the Special Court and consider the material in the c con Per Perhaps the focus was more on t the therefore, the appellant’s case appreciated. When a case is made o app Cou Courts should not have any hesita alle allegations of the prosecution may duty of the Courts is to consider th dut accordance with the law. “Bail i acc exception” is a settled law. exc e judgment, we must mention and the High Court did not he charge-sheet objectively. on the activities of PFI, and ase could not be properly ade out for a grant of bail, the esitation in granting bail. The may be very serious. But, the er the case for grant of bail in ail is the rule and jail is an 33. Even in a case like the pres 33 stri stringent conditions for the gran statutes, the same rule holds goo stat that the bail can be granted if the tha are are satisfied. The rule also means out for grant of bail, the Court can out If the Courts start denying bail in d If t a v a violation of the rights guarantee Con Constitution. xx” xxx present case where there are rant of bail in the relevant good with only modification f the conditions in the statute ans that once a case is made t cannot decline to grant bail. l in deserving cases, it will be nteed under Article 21 of our 20. In th In the case of “Mukesh Salam v. S v. State of Chhattisgarh and another” SLP ( LP (Criminal) No.3655 of 2024, vid , vide an order dated August PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 19 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) 30, 2024, the pe the petitioner was charged under Secti r Sections 10, 13, 17, 38 (1) (2), 40, 22-A and 2 and 22-C of UAPA and directed to ed to be released on bail as he was in custody ustody since May 06, 2020 and 40 nd 40 out of 100 prosecution witnesses had b had been examined. The Apex Cour Court observed that continued detention of the of the petitioner would not subserve th erve the ends of justice as there was no likeliho kelihood of early conclusion of the tr the trial. However, along with the conditions tions that may be imposed by the S the Special Judge (NIA Act) following two c two conditions were imposed as the as the conditions for grant of bail: (i) The petitioner shall repor 6 station once every week and stat eport to the nearest police (ii) The petitioner shall remain (ii) Judge on every date of the trial Jud pre presence is dispensed with by th cooperate in the early conclusion o coo main present before the trial trial without fail, unless his y the trial Court, and shall on of the trial.” 21. In a recent case in Tapas Ku In Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, r , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Line SC 322, by a judgment dated February ruary 14, 2025, the Supreme Court Court set-aside the impugned order passed by sed by the High Court, rejecting the ba the bail of the appellant. As per the prosecution’ cution’s case, the appellant was travel travelling in a vehicle carrying articles which c hich could be ordinarily related to to Naxalite activities. Upon search being c eing conducted, it was alleged tha ed that the appellant was in conscious posse es: possession of the following articles: “xxx “xx 4. ken and the following articles The search was undertaken 4. were recovered from the car all alleged to be in conscious wer ein:- possession of the appellant herein: pos PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (i) (i) 95 pair of shoes Page 20 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) (ii) Green black printed cloth (ii) (iii) Two bundles of electric wire (iii) (iv) LED lens and (iv) (v) Walki talki and other articles ticles. (v) wire each of 100 metere Xxx” Xxx 22. In that case, the appellant was arre In t as arrested on March 24, 2020. After filing of th g of the charge-sheet, the prosecution cution was only able to examine 42 witnesses an ses and intended to examine as many many as 100 witnesses. It was observed that ev that even after the passing of five year e years of the appellant being in judicial custody ustody, learned counsel appearing fo ring for the State had no idea regarding time t time that would be consumed to comp o complete the recording of oral evidence. The The Supreme Court rded recorded that in the aforesaid circumstances, i nces, it was left with no other option ion but to get the appellant released on b on bail despite the seriousness sness of the crime alleged. Furthermore, it ore, it was of the view that the Public Public Prosecutor who was in- charge of the t the trial, had to decide which of t h of the witnesses were to be examined and w and who were to be dropped as no as no useful purpose would be served if severa several witnesses were examined for e d for establishing the same fact. The relevant ext ant extract of the said judgment is repr is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “xx 10. 10. However, many times we h clear that howsoever serious a cr clea has a fundamental right of spee has Art Article 21 of the Constitution. Xxx Xxx e have made ourselves very a crime may be the accused speedy trial as enshrined in 12. The aforesaid results in inde 12. of of trial. It is expected of the Pub exercise his discretion insofar as e exe is c is concerned. Xxx Xxx indefinite delay in conclusion Public Prosecutor to wisely as examination of the witness Page 21 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) In this regard, the role of 14. 14. wou would also assume importance. T inq inquire with the Special Public Pro examine a particular witness if s exa depose the very same thing that dep hav have deposed earlier. We may s guidelines, but time has come to co gui and bail in its true and proper per and to g to get a final verdict after incarcer in jail as an undertrial prisoner, th in j said that his right to have a speedy said the the Constitution has been infringed on accused persons- who remai on guilty- can also be significant. A gui fina financially compensated for what m of p of pre-trial incarceration. They ma accommodation, acc rela relationships while incarcerated, a am amount of money on legal fees. If a not guilty, they have likely endure not stig stigmatized and perhaps even ostra and will have to rebuild their lives and of the Special Judge (NIA) e. The Special Judge should Prosecutor why he intends to if such witness is going to that any other witness might ay sound as if laying some to consider this issue of delay perspective. If an accused is rceration of six to seven years er, then, definitely, it could be eedy trial under Article 21 of ed. The stress of long trials emain innocent until proven nt. Accused persons are not hat might be a lengthy period y may also have lost a job for personal d experienced ed, and spent a considerable . If an accused person is found dured many months of being ostracized in their community ives with their own resources. damage to 15. 15. We would say that delays ar extr extremely bad for the victims, for I credibility of our justice system, wh cre the the masters of their Courtrooms an Cod Code provides many tools for the ensure that cases proceed efficientl ens Xxx” Xxx s are bad for the accused and for Indian society and for the , which is valued. Judges are s and the Criminal Procedure the Judges to use in order to iently. 23. In the present case, even if one ass In t ne assumes that the co-accused were indulging lging in terrorist acts or were particip articipating in acts preparatory to the commis mmission of terrorist acts, relevan elevant material at this stage connecting the g the accused to advocating, abettin abetting, advising, inciting or conspiring to co g to commit any terrorist act had to to be brought on record to justify rejection jection of bail especially after a long a long period of incarceration. However, no w no worthwhile record has been br een brought on record by the prosecution. 24. It was alleged in NIA RC No.27 It w No.27/2017/NIA/DLI that the appellant supp supplied arms to co-accused Ashok K shok Kumar, who then supplied Page 22 of 25 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) it to main accus accused Dharminder Singh @ Guggn Guggni, who in turn sold them to Ramandeep S deep Singh, who had shot Amit Sha it Sharma. The only allegation against the appe e appellant was that he was supplyin pplying weapons but it has not been alleged tha ed that he was in any manner involve nvolved in any terrorist activity. As per the appe e appellant’s purported disclosure stat re statement, no case was made out associating iating him with the Khalistani cause. M ause. Moreover, no recovery of any material wa ial was made, at this stage of grant of rant of bail linking the appellant to Khalistani co ani conspiracy. 25. It is pertinent to note that the Ad It i the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi bein hi being NIA Court vide an order dated May 31, 2022 had released the ac the accused-appellant on bail by ho by holding that there was no evidence either either direct or circumstantial wh al which would prima facie establish that th that the appellant was the part of th t of the conspiracy pursuant to which terrorist rorist acts were committed. Therefor erefore, the Court prima facie formed an opini opinion that there were no reasonabl sonable grounds to believe that the accused-app appellant was involved in activities ivities prohibited by Chapter IV of UAPA and hi and his application was considered un red under the general principles of bail. 26. It is also pertinent to note that for It i for more than five and half years, no effort effort was made by the State to inte to interrogate the main accused Dharminder Sin er Singh @ Guggni who is serving h ving his sentence in connection with a different fferent case in Tihar Jail, Delhi. The m . The main co-accused is yet to be arrested in th d in the present case despite challan allan being filed on March 01, 2021. No reason reasonable explanation has been prov n provided as to why the main co-accused has d has not been arrested in the presen present case and why custodial PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 23 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) interrogation ha ion has not been done till date. The ch The charges under Section 120- B IPC, Section ection 25 of the Arms Act and Sectio Sections 10, 13, 18, 19, 20 of UAPA were fra ere framed on April 24, 2024 and on and only 01 witness out of 40 prosecution witn n witnesses has been examined till da till date. Learned State counsel is also unable t able to give any reasonable estimate timate of the time that may be required for com or completion of the trial. Therefore, refore, the Court is left with no other option but on but to release the appellant on bail. n bail. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion In v ussion and the law laid down by the Supreme Co me Court, especially when the appella appellant is in custody for more than five years years and the end of the trial is not in s not in sight, considering only 01 out 40 witnesse itnesses have been examined so far, far, the appeal is allowed and the impugned o ned order dated September 20, 2022 2022 is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be to be released on regular bail subjec ect to following conditions besides furnishi rnishing of requisite bail bonds to th s to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Mag ty Magistrate concerned:- (i) He shall furnish bond of ₹10 l (i) ₹10 10 lakh each; ₹10 lakh with two sureties of (ii) (ii) He shall surrender his passport holding the same and is still with hi hol him; ssport in the Trial Court, if he is (iii) (iii) He shall appear before the Tria date, unless exempted by the Court; date Court; Trial Court on each and every (iv) (iv) He shall appear before the Inv when summoned; whe he Investigating Officer, as and directly make any inducement, v) H v) He shall not directly or indirect threat or promise to any person acq on acquainted with the facts of thre tness; the case or who is cited as witness; the vi) vi) He shall not involve in any crim the pendency of trial, he is found in the any offence punishable under any y criminal activity and if during und involved in commission of nder UAPA, the prosecuting PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 24 of 25 CRA-D-947-20 2023 (O&M) agency would be free to approach age this order and cancellation of his ba this proach this Court for recalling his bail; vii) vii) He shall not sell, transfer or in third party right over his immovabl thir r or in any other manner create ovable property; viii) He shall furnish an undertakin viii of his absence, Trial Court may pro of shall not claim re-examination of an sha rtaking to the effect that in case ay proceed with the trial and he n of any witness. ix) At the time of release of the ix) SH SHO shall be informed. He shall a every alternate Monday till the conc eve f the appellant, the concerned shall appear before the SHO on e conclusion of the trial. 28. In the event there is a breach of an In t h of any of the abovementioned conditions, or s, or of the conditions to be impo imposed by the Trial Court independently, i ntly, it would be open to the prosecuti secution to seek cancellation of the bail of the d f the defaulting appellant without any ut any further reference to this Court. Similarly ilarly, if the appellant seeks to threat threaten or otherwise influence any of the wi he witnesses, whether directly or i or indirectly, then also the prosecution sha n shall be at liberty to seek can k cancellation of bail of the concerned appe appellant by making appropriate ap ate application before the Trial Court. (DEEPAK SIB JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE SEPTEMBER Prince BER 12, 2025 Whether speakin Whether reporta speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.14 21:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 25 of 25