Bittu v. Ve unjab State of Punjab
Case Details
CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) IN THE H THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-1103-2022 (O& RESERVED ON: AUG DATE OF DECISION (O&M) AUGUST 21, 2025 SION:SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 Sukhjinder Sin er Singh @ Bittu ...Appellant Versus Ve unjab State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT HO DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate and Present : M Mr Mr. Kuljinder Billing, Advocate, For the appellant. For Mr. Sartej Singh Gill, Senior DAG, Mr DAG, Punjab. LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. The appellant has challenged the The d the order dated October 31, 2022, passed by sed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, K I, Kapurthala, exercising the power of Specia Special Court, whereby his bail appl il application in FIR No.140 of 07.05.2020 regi 0 registered under Sections 384, 465, , 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 489 of Indian Pena Penal Code (hereinafter referred erred to as “IPC”), Sections 25,54,59 of the of the Arms Act, Sections 13/18/19 of /19 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Ac Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to red to as “the UAPA”), later on added Sections ctions 120-B, 482, 121, 121-A, 122 , 122 of IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi Lodhi, District Kapurthala, has been d been dismissed. 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 under the UAPA UAPA, but except for recovery of on y of one pistol of .32 bore with SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 15 live cartrid cartridges and Rs.50,000/- in cash, cash, no other incriminating material was as alleged to have been recovered overed from him. He further submits that no hat no case has been made out agai t against the appellant by the prosecution wh n which could even suggest that the hat the accused has committed any offence un ce under the UAPA Act and that d that five other co-accused, including the m the main accused namely, Baljinder S nder Singh @ Billa appellant in CRA-D-686-202 2022, have been granted the ben e benefit of interim bail since July/August 202 st 2022. 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 SCC 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.
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 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. that Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC tha con conspiracy in India in line with E ove overt act inessential when the con punishable offence. The most imp pun offe offence being the agreement betwee do do an illegal act. In a case wher alleged, the court must inquire wh alle ind independently pursuing the same tog together to pursue the unlawful ob render them conspirators but the la ren of of conspiracy some kind of ph agr agreement is required to be e agreement need not be proved. agr transmission of thoughts sharing tran (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 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 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) sufficient. A conspiracy is a co suff con continues to subsist till it is ex frus frustrated by choice of necessity whenever any one of the conspirat whe of a of acts, he would be held guilty un Indian Penal Code. Ind 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. 6. Notice of motion was issued on No No on November 30, 2022. Pursuant to the directions of the C Pur the Court, the State has filed a short reply by w y by way of an affidavit dated Febru February 27, 2025 of Deputy Superintendent ndent of Police, Sub Division Su on Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. 7. Learned State counsel submits Lea bmits that the appellant was involved in anti in anti-national activities. A raid was c was conducted at the house of co-accused Lov d Lovepreet Singh on the basis of is of a secret information that accused were i were in possession of high technol echnology imported arms and ammunitions an and were committing dacoity, e oity, extortion and involved in smuggling of d g of drugs and planning to commit mmit affray. During the raid, several people n ople namely Baljinder Singh @ Billa Billa, Mohit Sharma, Mangal Singh and Mani Maninder Singh @ Happy, Sukhjind khjinder Singh-appellant, were found present an sent and were apprehended from the h the house of Lovepreet Singh @ Love. Sever Several high tech arms and ammu ammunitions along with drug money of Rs.7,0 Rs.7,00,818/-, 100 Australian dollars dollars, two passports and three luxury cars we were recovered. Since all had th had the common intention of committing terro terrorist act/s, none of them should b hould be released on bail. 8. 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 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 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 sh shows that apart from the fact th Sp Special Court from releasing an affording the Public Prosecutor af he heard on the application seeking 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 section 173 of the Code of Crimi se opinion that there are reasonab op th that the accusation, against su commission of offence or offences co Chapter VI of the UAP Act is Ch ac accused person shall not be relea bond. It is interesting to note th bo 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 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 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 til tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phr is is the exception’ – unless circums does not find any place while deal do un under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ gr grant bail under the UAP Act scope. The form of the words us sc 43 43D (5) – ‘shall not be released’ of of the words as found in section released’ – suggests the intenti re m make bail, the exception and jail, 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. 2 28. In this background, the tes quite plain. Bail must be rejec qu test for rejection of bail is ejected as a ‘rule’, if after Page 5 of 23 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) ‘tripod r and after perusing the final hearing the public prosecutor an he ourt arrives at a conclusion re report or Case Diary, the Court rounds for believing that the th that there are reasonable groun true. It is only if the test for accusations are prima facie true ac fied – that the Courts would re rejection of bail is not satisfied pplication in accordance with proceed to decide the bail applic pr influencing witnesses, risk, test’ (flight risk, the th his position is made clear by ta tampering with evidence). This p D, which lays down that the Su Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, w bail specified in Sub-section restrictions, on granting of bail re estrictions under the Code of (5 (5), are in addition to the restri ther law for the time being in Cr Criminal Procedure or any other force on grant of bail. fo Xxx” Xx 9. This Court has heard learned co ned counsel for the parties and perused the mat e material on record. 10. The allegation against the appella The ppellant is that he was present when the house house of Lovepreet Singh @ Love Love was raided. As per the prosecution stor n story, one .32 bore pistol with 07 r th 07 rounds of .32 bore and 08 rounds of .30 bo 30 bore along with drug money of R y of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from the appella ppellant. 11. From the reply filed on behalf of t Fro lf of the State, it transpires that during investiga estigation, the prosecution recorded d rded disclosure statement dated May 17, 2020 2020, of the co-accused Baljinde aljinder Singh @ Billa, who purportedly stat ly stated that present appellant was in was involved in a car snatching incident along w long with him and also fired a bullet ullet at the foot of the driver of Verna car. The r. The said incident was repeated in ted in the disclosure statement dated Septemb ptember 07, 2020 of Gurpreet Sin et Singh @ Gora, who also mentioned the p d the present appellant’s name in the ca the car snatching incident. 12. t also appears from the reply that It that no specific role has been attributed to th to the appellant in the car snatchi natching incident nor has any SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) incriminating m ting material been found against the nst the appellant at this stage, evidencing towa g towards his involvement with any o any offence under the UAPA. Except the abo e above, the learned State counsel w unsel was unable to show any further evidence idence collected against the appella ppellant connecting him to an offence committ ommitted under UAPA. 13. 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 appe e appellant has undergone an actual actual sentence of 05 years 02 months and 30 nd 30 days. The Constitutional Court Court would like to prevent a situation where where the lengthy and arduous proc s process of trial becomes the punishment in nt in itself. Reference can be made made to the judgment of the Supreme Court Court in K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) ra), wherein it has been held that long custod custody would be an essential factor factor while granting bail under UAPA. Article rticle 21 of the Constitution of India India provides right to speedy trial and long p long period of incarceration would be uld be a good ground to grant bail to an unde under-trial for an offence punishable shable under UAPA. It has also been held that that the embargo under Section 43 ion 43-D of UAPA would not negate the pow e powers of the Court to give effe e effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of on of India. Section 43-D of UAPA APA is reproduced hereinafter for ready referen reference:- 43 D. Modified application of cer f certain provisions of the “43 Code.— Cod SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) (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. (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),— (a) the references to “fifteen d (a) “si “sixty days”, wherever they occu references to “thirty days”, “ni refe days” respectively; and day en days”, “ninety days” and occur, shall be construed as “ninety days” and “ninety (b) after the proviso, the follo (b) 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 indicating the progress of the inve ind 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 investigation under this Act, requ inv 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 Go Government.”; (ii) (ii) to “order of the State Govern as a reference to “order of the Ce as 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 on (2) thereof, to “the State rued as a reference to “the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) . Central Government or the State Cen may be”. ma tate Government, as the case (4) Nothing in section 438 of the Co (4) 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 (5) (5) Notwithstanding anything con per person accused of an offence punis and VI of this Act shall, if in custo and on on his own bond unless the Pub giv given an opportunity of being hea such release: Provided that such ac suc rele released on bail or on his own per perusal of the case diary or the re 173 of the Code is of the opinion 173 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) sec section (5) is in addition to the re 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 (7) Notwithstanding anything cont (7) contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted t and ted to a person accused of an offe offence punishable under this Ac Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the co citi country unauthorisedly or tional circumstances and for illegally except in very exceptiona ille ng.” reasons to be recorded in writing. rea The relevant ext ant extract of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: hat the presence of statutory “ “17. It is thus clear to us that (5) of UAPA per se does not restrictions like Section 43-D(5) o res nal Courts to grant bail on ous oust the ability of Constitutional I of the Constitution. Whereas gro grounds of violation of Part III of t gs, the Courts are expected to at commencement of proceedings, t at c y against grant of bail but the app appreciate the legislative policy ag l melt down where there is no rigo rigours of such provisions will mel eted within a reasonable time likelihood of trial being completed like tion already undergone has and and the period of incarceration the prescribed sentence. Such exc exceeded a substantial part of the p rd against the possibility of an approach would safeguard a an 5) of UAPA being used as the pro provisions like Section 43-D (5) of sole metric for denial of bail or l or for wholesale breach of sole rial. constitutional right to speedy trial. con xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 19. xxxxxx 19 Ins Instead, Section 43-D (5) of UAPA pos possible ground for the competen addition to the well settled conside add offe offence, possibility of tampering w the the witnesses or chance of the acc 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 14. 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 refe reference was made to the judgmen Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nad Swa which, citing two earlier decisions whi of of State v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 Singh v. State of (UT of Delhi) Sin factors for granting bail under no fac disc discussed. It was held that the natu offences, the character of the evide offe are peculiar to the accused, a rea are pre presence of the accused not bei reasonable apprehension of witnes rea the larger interest of the public the rele relevant factors for granting or re the the appellants’ case founded on A Constitution of India with the a Con con considering the fact that almost fiv the they were taken into custody, w appellants have made out a c app Alle Allegations against them no doubt rea reason alone bail cannot be denie with the offences under Chapters I wit we we have referred to the materials this this stage. These materials ca 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 15. 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 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) an accused fro ed from being a fugitive from justi justice or to prevent further commission of 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 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 In the case of K.A. Najeeb v. 37. 37. SCC SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a of Constitutional Court is not strictly Con pro provisions of grant of bail in the 1 its constitutional jurisdiction to re its who has been incarcerated for a lo who on on Article 21 of Constitution of sou sought to be distinguished by Mr. N judgment of this Court in the case o jud 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 ase of it has been held:- "32. The Appellant's counse of KA Najeeb (supra) to ba appellant has been in jail 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 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 Page 11 of 23 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) ail. Further, In KA Najeeb's assessment to grant bail. pondent accused was severed case the trial of the respon sed owing to his absconding from the other co-accused ack in 2015 and was being and he was traced back fter and the NIA had filed a separately tried thereafter that were left to be examined long list of witnesses that said accused therefore this with reference to the said 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 y discussed, the material examined. As already d dicates the involvement of the available on record indicat e of terrorist activities backed appellant in furtherance of nned terrorist organization 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 the process of justice. 23 which might hamper the in trial pertaining to grave Therefore, mere delay in ed in the instant case cannot offences as one involved in nd to grant bail. Hence, the on be used as a ground t the behalf of the appellant aforesaid argument on the cannot be accepted.” 38. Relying on this judgment, M 38. bail is not a fundamental right. Sec bai enl enlarged on bail, an accused enu enumerated in Chapters IV and V fulfill the conditions specified in Se fu do do not accept the first part of thi has has already accepted right of an offences of the 1967 Act to be en offe suc such right on Article 21 of the C was was in the case of Najeeb (supra), a period of incarceration was held per enl enlarge an accused on bail in sp provision of Section 43D (5) of the pro to col is necessary detention det inv investigation stage), to maintain pu and and also to prevent an accused justice. Such detention is also nec just com commission of offence by the sam gra gravity and seriousness of the offe committed by an accused, detent com tria trial at the investigation and post- sanction of law broadly on these re san 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 collect evidence (at SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 12 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) deprival of liberty results in bre dep Con Constitution of India and must be bei being reasonable, following a just such deprival must be proportiona suc cas case. These would be the overarch law law Courts would have to apply w plea of pre-trial detention, both a ple charge sheet stage.” cha 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- 39. As regards second part of 39. whi which we have noted in the preced it w it with a qualification. The reason also have to be examined, if it is also whi which is examining prosecution' cus custody an accused charged with He cited Gurwinder Singh in whi He Naj Najeeb was distinguished on facts Hig High Court rejecting the prayer for upheld. But this was a judgment uph case and did not dislocate the cas con constitutional ground enunciated in prosecution, another order of a coo pro 18-1-2024, in Mazhar Khan v. NIA 18 the the petitioner's prayer for overturn of the High Court under similar p of t was rejected by the coordinate B was of Watali judgment and also cons of judgment a this proceeded pro provisions to be valid and applicab pro ind individual allegations in terms of t D D (5) of the 1967 Act. Thus, the pro the appellant is concerned, does no the the reasoning forming the basis of th t of Mr Nataraj's argument eceding paragraph, we accept asoning in Najeeb case would it is the constitutional court tion's plea for retaining in with bail-restricting offences. which the judgment of K.A. facts and a judgment of the r for bail of the appellant was ent in the given facts of that the axis of reasoning on ed in Najeeb. On behalf of the a coordinate Bench passed on NIA was cited. In this order, turning a bail-rejection order ar provisions of the 1967 Act te Bench applying the ratio considering Vernon. We have t accepting the restrictive licable and then dealt with the of the proviso to Section 43- e prosecution's case, so far as es not gain any premium from s of Mazhar Khan (supra).’ in 16. The case of Gurwinder Sing The Singh (supra) was clearly [emphasis supplied]. distinguished in hed in the present case under disc r discussion and it has been observed that i that in the said case the trial was a was already going on 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. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 13 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 17. 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 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 “13. The aforesaid observations again, in several judgments, such a aga v. S v. State of Bihar reported in (198 Reh Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak re 225. In the latter the Court reemph 225 trial, and further held that an ac tria trial, has no option: tria 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.” 14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain 14. reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Co rep “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 in ainant prosecutes him. It is, the State or the complainant, o proceed with the case with de. Particularly, this 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 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 14 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 4,25,069 lakhs in the country convicts; the rest 4,27,165 wer 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 y loses his the prisoner t transformation” whereby a number. He loses personal identity. He is known by a nu no personal relationships. possessions. He has no result from loss of freedom, Psychological problems resu ty any autonomy of personal status, possessions, dignity a of prison turns out to be life. The inmate culture of becomes hostile by ordinary dreadful. The prisoner beco changes. standards. Self-perception cha 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 potential in everyone is good and pot crim criminal as beyond redemption. Th is o is often missed when dealing with adult. Indeed, every saint has a adu futu future. When a crime is committe res responsible for making the offender factors may be social and econom fac val value erosion or parental neglect; stre stress of circumstances, or the ma in a milieu of affluence contrasted in a 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 18. 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 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 15 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 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 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 Judg o Judge Bench like Gurwinder Sing Singh’s case (supra) or the present case un ase under discussion. The relevant evant extract of Sheikh Javed Iqbal’s case (su - supra) is reproduced hereunder:- In Gurwinder Singh’s case 31. “31 has has been placed by the responden this this Court distinguished K.A. Naje that the appellant in K.A. Najee tha cus custody for five years and that the t that case was severed from the oth tha they were sentenced the had concluded whereupon had imp imprisonment of eight years; but tria trial was already underway and t including the protected witnesses inc was in that context, the two Judg was that mere delay tha Gu Gurwinder Singh observed pertaining to grave offences canno per 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. This Court has, time and aga 32. to l to life and personal liberty enshrin Con Constitution of India is overarc constitutional court cannot be rest con to a to an accused on account of restri in a penal statute if it finds that in 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- Page 16 of 23 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) in the Constitution of India has t, such statutory restrictions ay. Even the case of 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, ing rendered by a three Judge f two Judges like us. in undertrial under Article 21 of the und been infringed. In that event, su bee wou the way. would not come interpretation of a penal statute, h inte be, be, a constitutional court has con constitutionalism and the rule of l intrinsic part. In the given facts intr con constitutional court may decline to be be very wrong to say that under cannot be granted. It would run co can our our constitutional jurisprudence. I K.A K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) being r Bench is binding on a Bench of two Ben xxx xxxxxx 33. 33. Continued incarceration of the app Con xxx.” xxx xxx appellant cannot be justified 19. 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. 17.1 Bihar Police had received in disturb the proposed visit of Ho dist Bih Bihar by some suspected persons Phu Phulwarisharif area. On 11.07.202 secret information, a raid was c sec offi officers of PS Phulwarisharif, hou house/premises of Athar Parvej (A of documents “India 2047 Toward of Inte for C Internal Document: Not “Po “Popular Front of India 20-2-202 and 30 copies in Urdu, 49 cloth fla and ke ke liye Popular Front ke saath” agr agreement on non-judicial stamp Jalaluddin Khan (A-2) with tenant Jal Abd Abdul Qayum Ansari. The recovere mo mobile phone having SIM card of (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 Page 17 of 23 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 20. 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. Succinct reason reasoning leading to the grant of b t of bail is reproduced herein under: “xxx “xx 30. 30. Therefore, on plain reading not possible to record a conclusion not grounds for believing that the gro app appellant of commission of offence is prima-facie true. We have taken is p statement of witness Z as they a stat min mini-trial. Looking at what we impossible to record a prima-faci imp reasonable grounds for believing th rea the the appellant of commission of of prim prima-facie true. No antecedents o 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. 31. The upshot of the above dis no reason to reject the bail a no appellant. app e discussion is that there was il application filed by the 32. Before we part with the jud 32. her here that the Special Court and con consider the material in the c Perhaps the focus was more on t Per the therefore, the appellant’s case app appreciated. When a case is made o Courts should not have any hesita Cou alle allegations of the prosecution may dut duty of the Courts is to consider th 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 present case where there are rant of bail in the relevant good with only modification Page 18 of 23 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) that the bail can be granted if the tha are are satisfied. The rule also means out out for grant of bail, the Court can If the Courts start denying bail in d If t a v a violation of the rights guarantee Con Constitution. xx” xxx 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 21. 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 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.” 22. 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 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 19 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) 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 ken and the following articles 4. The search was undertaken 4. alleged to be in conscious were recovered from the car all wer ein:- possession of the appellant herein: pos 95 pair of shoes (i) (i) (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 23. 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: SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 20 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) “xxx “xx 10. 10. However, many times we h clear that howsoever serious a cr clea has has a fundamental right of spee 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 trial. It is expected of the Pub of exe exercise his discretion insofar as e is c is concerned. Xxx Xxx indefinite delay in conclusion Public Prosecutor to wisely as examination of the witness 14. In this regard, the role of 14. would also assume importance. T wou inq inquire with the Special Public Pro exa examine a particular witness if s depose the very same thing that dep have deposed earlier. We may s hav gui guidelines, but time has come to co and bail in its true and proper per and to get a final verdict after incarcer to g in j in jail as an undertrial prisoner, th said that his right to have a speedy said the Constitution has been infringed the on on accused persons- who remai guilty- can also be significant. A gui financially compensated for what m fina of p of pre-trial incarceration. They ma acc accommodation, relationships while incarcerated, a rela am amount of money on legal fees. If a not not guilty, they have likely endure stigmatized and perhaps even ostra stig 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 d personal 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. We would say that delays ar 15. extr extremely bad for the victims, for I cre credibility of our justice system, wh the masters of their Courtrooms an the Cod Code provides many tools for the ens ensure that cases proceed efficientl 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. 24. In the p the present case, even if one assumes sumes that the co-accused were indulging in ter in terrorist acts or were participatin cipating in acts preparatory to SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 21 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) the commission ission of terrorist acts, relevant materi material at this stage connecting the accused to ed to advocating, abetting, advising, ising, inciting or conspiring to commit any terr ny terrorist act had to be brought on r ht on record to justify rejection of bail after a lo er a long period of incarceration. 25. It is pertinent to note that in the It i in the present case all the 36 witnesses remai remain to be examined despite the ch the charge-sheet being filed on 22.02.2021. Lea Learned State counsel is also unab o unable to give any reasonable estimate of the of the time that may be required for ed for completion of the trial. Therefore, the , the Court is left with no other o ther option but to release the appellant on bai on bail. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussi In iscussion, especially when the appellant is in c is in custody for 05 years, 02 months onths and 30 days and the end of the trial is no
Arguments
Mr. Bhatia also places reliance up Mr upon State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and a and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203, to , to submit that even if a .32 bore pistol along l along with Rs.50,000/- cash was reco as recovered from the appellant, still nothing has ng has been brought on record to esta to establish criminal conspiracy between the pre he present appellant and other co-accu accused. The relevant extract of the titled case d case is reproduced hereinafter: SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 23 CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) “xxx “xx 12. 12. We are aware of the fact evidence of criminal conspiracy i evid and and its existence is a matter of int are are normally deduced from acts of purpose in common between the co pur V.C V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Adm crim criminal conspiracy there must circumstantial to show that there w circ two two or more persons to commit an mee meeting of minds resulting in ultim conspirators regarding the comm con whe where the factum of conspiracy is s circ circumstances, the prosecution circumstances give rise to a c circ infe inference of an agreement betwee com commit an offence. As in all oth prosecution has to discharge its o pro against aga circ circumstances in a case, when tak value, should indicate the meeting val conspirators for the intended objec con act act or an act which is not illegal, by here and a few bits there on whi her cannot be held to be adequate fo can wit with the commission of the crime has to be shown that all means ado has were in furtherance of the object o wer circ circumstances relied for the pu infe inference should be prior in time th of the offence in furtherance of the of t
Decision
l is not in sight, the appeal is allowed llowed and the impugned order dated October tober 31, 2022 is set aside. The ap he appellant is ordered to be released on re on regular bail subject to follow following conditions besides furnishing of of requisite bail bonds to the 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) He shall surrender his passport (ii) holding the same and is still with hi hol him; ort in the Trial Court, if he is (iii) He shall appear before the Tria (iii) date, unless exempted by the Court; date Court; Trial Court on each and every (iv) He shall appear before the Inv (iv) when summoned; whe he Investigating Officer, as and directly make any inducement, v) He shall not directly or indirect v) H threat or promise to any person acq on acquainted with the facts of thre tness; the case or who is cited as witness; the Page 22 of 23 SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 2022 (O&M) vi) vi) He shall not involve in any crim the the pendency of trial, he is found in any offence punishable under any age agency would be free to approach this order and cancellation of his ba this y criminal activity and if during nd involved in commission of nder UAPA, the prosecuting 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 viii) He shall furnish an undertakin of of his absence, Trial Court may pro 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) ix) At the time of release of the SHO shall be informed. He shall a SH every alternate Monday till the conc eve f the appellant, the concerned shall appear before the SHO on e conclusion of the trial. 27. 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 DGE JUDGE SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) (LA JUDGE SEPTEMBER shalini BER 02, 2025 Whether speakin Whether reporta speaking/reasoned: reportable: Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 23 of 23