CRA-D-1613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

Prabhjeet Singh

State of Punjab

1. The date when the judgment is reserved

2. The date when the judgment is pronounced

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on

the website

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment

is pronounced or

is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of

full judgment, and reasons thereof

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Amit Agnihotri,

(through video conferencing)

Ms

Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate and

Ms. Simran, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The appellant has challenged

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby his bail

application in

IPC, 25(6) and 25(7)(i) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 4 and 5 of

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short

subsequently added offence under Sections 120

18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Preventio

the UAPA), further S

1613-2024 (O&M)

Sr. No.120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRA-D-1613

Prabhjeet Singh

Versus

State of Punjab

The date when the judgment is reserved

The date when the judgment is pronounced

The date when the judgment is uploaded on

the website

Whether only operative part of the judgment

is pronounced or whether the full judgment

is pronounced

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of

full judgment, and reasons thereof

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate,

(through video conferencing)

Ms. Mani Makkar, Advocate,

Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate and

Ms. Simran, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab.

***

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The appellant has challenged the order dated October 23, 2024,

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby his bail

FIR No. 142 dated 07.09.2022 registered under Sections

IPC, 25(6) and 25(7)(i) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 4 and 5 of

e Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short

subsequently added offence under Sections 120

B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Preventio

further Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act were deleted

Page 1 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1613-2024 (O&M)

…Appellant

…Respondent

07.11.2025

The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.11.2025

The date when the judgment is uploaded on 18.11.2025

Whether only operative part of the judgment

whether the full judgment

Full

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable

DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate and

Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional A.G., Punjab.

the order dated October 23, 2024,

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby his bail

FIR No. 142 dated 07.09.2022 registered under Sections 389

IPC, 25(6) and 25(7)(i) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 4 and 5 of the

e Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short-the NDPS Act),

subsequently added offence under Sections 120-B IPC, Sections 13, 16, 17,

B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short-

85 of NDPS Act were deleted and

CRA-D-1613

Section 387 IPC added later on

Taran, (for short

PROSECUTION’S CASE

2. On September 07, 2022, the Investigating Officer

with other police officials

informed them that one Lakhbir Singh @ Landa son of Naranjan Singh and

Harminder Singh @ Harinder Singh @ Rinda son

gangsters and operating their network from Pakistan. Both the aforesaid

persons were

ammunition, weapons, explosive smuggled from Pakistan into India. They

demanded ransom

numbers from abroad and threatened that

lead to dire consequences.

3. FIR No. 142 dated September 7, 2022 wa

basis of secret information under Section

Arms Act, Sections 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section

29 of NDPS Act at P

Honey, Jashan @ Gu

Harminder Sin

Satta, Nachattar Singh @ Moti, Charat Singh @ Charat, Arshdeep Singh @

Bathi, Sukhdev Singh @ Shera, Jaisal Singh, Gurjant Singh @ Janta,

Mahabir Singh, Sadhbir Singh, Jagroop Singh @ Simma, Lovepreet Sing

@ Love @ Bhund, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sikki, Harpreet Singh @ Happy

@ Billa, Romi, Robanpreet Singh @ Roban, Gurlal Singh @ Lali

Pehalwan, Daljit Singh, Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta, Manjinder Singh @ Manna,

Harpreet Singh and Gurkirat Singh @ Ghugi @ Shooter.

1613-2024 (O&M)

Section 387 IPC added later on at Police Station Sirhali

Taran, (for short-the FIR in question), has been dismissed.

PROSECUTION’S CASE

On September 07, 2022, the Investigating Officer

with other police officials were on patrolling

informed them that one Lakhbir Singh @ Landa son of Naranjan Singh and

Harminder Singh @ Harinder Singh @ Rinda son

and operating their network from Pakistan. Both the aforesaid

were gang leaders who operated a gang in India and got heroin,

ammunition, weapons, explosive smuggled from Pakistan into India. They

demanded ransom money from innocent people through virtual phone

numbers from abroad and threatened that failure to pay the ransom would

lead to dire consequences.

FIR No. 142 dated September 7, 2022 wa

ecret information under Section 389 of IPC, Section

Arms Act, Sections 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section

29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sirhali against Shamsher Singh @ Shera,

Honey, Jashan @ Gurjashanpreet Singh, Lakhbir Singh @ Landa,

Harminder Singh @ Hinder @ Rinda, Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @

Satta, Nachattar Singh @ Moti, Charat Singh @ Charat, Arshdeep Singh @

Bathi, Sukhdev Singh @ Shera, Jaisal Singh, Gurjant Singh @ Janta,

Mahabir Singh, Sadhbir Singh, Jagroop Singh @ Simma, Lovepreet Sing

@ Love @ Bhund, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sikki, Harpreet Singh @ Happy

@ Billa, Romi, Robanpreet Singh @ Roban, Gurlal Singh @ Lali

Pehalwan, Daljit Singh, Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta, Manjinder Singh @ Manna,

Harpreet Singh and Gurkirat Singh @ Ghugi @ Shooter.

Page 2 of 17

olice Station Sirhali, District Tarn

the FIR in question), has been dismissed.

On September 07, 2022, the Investigating Officer (IO) along

patrolling when a secret informer

informed them that one Lakhbir Singh @ Landa son of Naranjan Singh and

Harminder Singh @ Harinder Singh @ Rinda son of Charan Singh are big

and operating their network from Pakistan. Both the aforesaid

leaders who operated a gang in India and got heroin,

ammunition, weapons, explosive smuggled from Pakistan into India. They

from innocent people through virtual phone

failure to pay the ransom would

FIR No. 142 dated September 7, 2022 was registered on the

389 of IPC, Sections 25(6), (7) of

Arms Act, Sections 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 21 and

against Shamsher Singh @ Shera,

jashanpreet Singh, Lakhbir Singh @ Landa,

gh @ Hinder @ Rinda, Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @

Satta, Nachattar Singh @ Moti, Charat Singh @ Charat, Arshdeep Singh @

Bathi, Sukhdev Singh @ Shera, Jaisal Singh, Gurjant Singh @ Janta,

Mahabir Singh, Sadhbir Singh, Jagroop Singh @ Simma, Lovepreet Singh

@ Love @ Bhund, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sikki, Harpreet Singh @ Happy

@ Billa, Romi, Robanpreet Singh @ Roban, Gurlal Singh @ Lali

Pehalwan, Daljit Singh, Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta, Manjinder Singh @ Manna,

Harpreet Singh and Gurkirat Singh @ Ghugi @ Shooter. After registration

CRA-D-1613

of the FIR, a naka

Three people who rode a black motorcycle without

were apprehended by the police and they identified themselves as Har

Singh @ Happy @

Shera. On conducting a search, one country

with four live cartridges and Rs.50 in

from Sukhdev Singh

cartridges of the same

recovered from Nachattar Singh @ Moti.

motorcycle, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Rs. 50/

were recovered.

4. During the course of investigation/interrogation, Nachattar

Singh @ Moti disclosed that he had hidden one I.E.D. and

the Crematorium place near the wall of bridge Ratoke and the said

detonator was kept

@ Satnam Singh @ Satta.

5. During the course of investigation, Harpreet Singh @ Happy

disclosed that he had

in village Thathian Mahantan at the behest of

Landa and one

amount, Rs.4,50,000/

Moti and Rs.50

Thereafter he got the

residential house.

6. During the course of investigation, Nachhatar Singh suffered a

disclosure statement on September 14, 2022 to the effect tha

1613-2024 (O&M)

naka was installed at Sohana bridge situated

Three people who rode a black motorcycle without

were apprehended by the police and they identified themselves as Har

Singh @ Happy @ Billa, Nachattar Singh @ Moti and Sukhdev Singh @

On conducting a search, one country-made pistol of .315 bore along

with four live cartridges and Rs.50 in Indian currency notes were recovered

from Sukhdev Singh @ Shera. One pistol of .30 bore along with four

the same bore and Rs.100/- in Indian currency notes were

recovered from Nachattar Singh @ Moti.

orcycle, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Rs. 50/

ed.

During the course of investigation/interrogation, Nachattar

Singh @ Moti disclosed that he had hidden one I.E.D. and

the Crematorium place near the wall of bridge Ratoke and the said

detonator was kept at the behest of Lakhbir Singh

@ Satnam Singh @ Satta.

During the course of investigation, Harpreet Singh @ Happy

disclosed that he had taken ransom amount of Rs.5,00,000/

in village Thathian Mahantan at the behest of the gangster

one Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta.

amount, Rs.4,50,000/- was handed over to co

Moti and Rs.50,000/- was hidden in a room of

Thereafter he got the amount of Rs.50,000/- rec

residential house.

During the course of investigation, Nachhatar Singh suffered a

disclosure statement on September 14, 2022 to the effect tha

Page 3 of 17

bridge situated in village Sirhali.

Three people who rode a black motorcycle without a registration number

were apprehended by the police and they identified themselves as Harpreet

Billa, Nachattar Singh @ Moti and Sukhdev Singh @

made pistol of .315 bore along

currency notes were recovered

pistol of .30 bore along with four live

in Indian currency notes were

recovered from Nachattar Singh @ Moti. From the driver of the

orcycle, Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Rs. 50/- in Indian currency notes

During the course of investigation/interrogation, Nachattar

Singh @ Moti disclosed that he had hidden one I.E.D. and a detonator in

the Crematorium place near the wall of bridge Ratoke and the said

at the behest of Lakhbir Singh @ Landa, Satbir Singh

During the course of investigation, Harpreet Singh @ Happy

taken ransom amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from a footpath

the gangster Lakhbir Singh @

@ Satnam Singh @ Satta. Out of the said

was handed over to co-accused Nachhatar Singh @

a room of his residential house.

recovered from a room in his

During the course of investigation, Nachhatar Singh suffered a

disclosure statement on September 14, 2022 to the effect that he had hidden

CRA-D-1613

a sum of Rs.50,000/

location of the spot

Singh @ Landa and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta. The said

amount was recovered

Nachhatar Singh

Landa and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta through virtual mode

like Instagram, Snapchat, Whatsapp, etc.

were radicalized

ransom, illegal

of such disclosure statement suffered by co

Moti, the appellant along with co

Jograj Singh @ Jogg and Lakhbir Singh Ro

present case on September 09, 2022.

7. The appellant was arrested on September 15, 2022 and sum of

Rs.50,000/- were recovered from him and the said recovery connected the

appellant to Nachhatar Singh and through him with Lakhbir S

Landa. The challan/final report was filed on December 5, 2022.

SUBMISSIONS

8. Learned cou

erred in law and on facts in denying the bail to the appellant. Although it is

alleged by the prosecution

activities but there is no material to connect the appe

commission of any offence

recovery the purported

has been alleged to be recovered from him. The appellant has

to be prosecuted only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co

1613-2024 (O&M)

a sum of Rs.50,000/- ransom money, in an unknown spot.

location of the spot where the amount was hidden were

Singh @ Landa and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta. The said

recovered by the present appellant Prabhjeet Singh @ Prabh.

Nachhatar Singh disclosed that he was in touch with Lakhbir Singh @

Landa and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta through virtual mode

like Instagram, Snapchat, Whatsapp, etc. and at their insistence local youths

radicalized for the purpose of committing offences like collection

illegal sale and supply of ammunition and narcotics. On the basis

of such disclosure statement suffered by co-

Moti, the appellant along with co-accused Simrajnjit Singh @ Simbu,

Jograj Singh @ Jogg and Lakhbir Singh Ro

present case on September 09, 2022.

The appellant was arrested on September 15, 2022 and sum of

were recovered from him and the said recovery connected the

appellant to Nachhatar Singh and through him with Lakhbir S

The challan/final report was filed on December 5, 2022.

SUBMISSIONS

Learned counsel for the appellant submits

erred in law and on facts in denying the bail to the appellant. Although it is

by the prosecution that the appellant was involved in anti

activities but there is no material to connect the appe

commission of any offence more so to an offence under UAPA. A

the purported sum of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant nothi

has been alleged to be recovered from him. The appellant has

to be prosecuted only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co

Page 4 of 17

, in an unknown spot. The picture and

where the amount was hidden were shared with Lakhbir

Singh @ Landa and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta. The said

lant Prabhjeet Singh @ Prabh.

he was in touch with Lakhbir Singh @

Landa and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta through virtual modes

and at their insistence local youths

for the purpose of committing offences like collection of

sale and supply of ammunition and narcotics. On the basis

-accused Nachhatar Singh @

accused Simrajnjit Singh @ Simbu,

Jograj Singh @ Jogg and Lakhbir Singh Rode were nominated in the

The appellant was arrested on September 15, 2022 and sum of

were recovered from him and the said recovery connected the

appellant to Nachhatar Singh and through him with Lakhbir Singh @

The challan/final report was filed on December 5, 2022.

nsel for the appellant submits that the Special Court

erred in law and on facts in denying the bail to the appellant. Although it is

that the appellant was involved in anti-national

activities but there is no material to connect the appellant with the

an offence under UAPA. Apart from

from the appellant nothing else

has been alleged to be recovered from him. The appellant has been sought

to be prosecuted only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-

CRA-D-1613

accused Nachhatar Singh @ Moti in police custody which in the absence of

any corroborative evidence h

further submits that the prosecution case is absolutely vague

appellant and even after completion of the investigation the appellant’s

alleged role is not specified. Even if all the contents of the final rep

by the police

are taken to be gospel truth still there is no material brought on record by

the prosecution

UAPA. Despite

have not been framed as yet. There are approximately 25 witness

present trial but since the sanction for

UAPA has not

cognizance could have been

even after 3 years of custody.

than 3 years and such prolonged incarceration without the commencement

of trial in itself entitles th

21 of the Constitution of India.

9. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant

has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in

K.A.Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713

and another, (2024) 6 SCC 591

another, (2023) 15 SCC 56

Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another,

10. Per contra,

instant appeal by submitting that the appellant is engaged in anti

1613-2024 (O&M)

accused Nachhatar Singh @ Moti in police custody which in the absence of

any corroborative evidence has no evidentiary value.

further submits that the prosecution case is absolutely vague

and even after completion of the investigation the appellant’s

alleged role is not specified. Even if all the contents of the final rep

police under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure

are taken to be gospel truth still there is no material brought on record by

prosecution which would attract applicability of the provisions of the

UAPA. Despite the challan being filed on September 15, 2022

have not been framed as yet. There are approximately 25 witness

l but since the sanction for prosecution

UAPA has not been obtained yet from the competent authori

could have been taken. Therefore, the

even after 3 years of custody. The appellant has been in custody for more

than 3 years and such prolonged incarceration without the commencement

of trial in itself entitles the appellant to be granted bail by invoking Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant

has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in

(2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Ma

(2024) 6 SCC 591, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and

(2023) 15 SCC 56, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @

Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293

kh v. State of Maharashtra and another,

Per contra, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the

instant appeal by submitting that the appellant is engaged in anti

Page 5 of 17

accused Nachhatar Singh @ Moti in police custody which in the absence of

as no evidentiary value. Learned counsel

further submits that the prosecution case is absolutely vague qua the

and even after completion of the investigation the appellant’s

alleged role is not specified. Even if all the contents of the final report filed

of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

are taken to be gospel truth still there is no material brought on record by

applicability of the provisions of the

filed on September 15, 2022, charges

have not been framed as yet. There are approximately 25 witnesses in the

prosecution as required under the

yet from the competent authority, no

taken. Therefore, the trial could not commence

The appellant has been in custody for more

than 3 years and such prolonged incarceration without the commencement

to be granted bail by invoking Article

In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant

has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v.

Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra

, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and

, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed

(2024) 8 SCC 293 and Javed Gulam

kh v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2024) 9 SCC 813.

learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the

instant appeal by submitting that the appellant is engaged in anti-national

CRA-D-1613

activities and his role in

consignments has been clearly disclosed in the statement of the co

Nachhatar Singh @ Moti and therefore, in terms of Section 43

UAPA, the appellant should be denied bail. However, it is

by the State counsel that charges are yet to be framed against the appellant

and the trial in which approximately 25 prosecution witnesses are to be

examined, is yet to begin.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

11. Learned counsel for the parties

able assistance the record of the case has also been examined.

12. At the outset it would be apposite to refer to Section 43

the UAPA. The same reads as follows:

43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the

Code.

(1)

other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be

deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of

clause (c) of

defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.

(2)

involving an offence punishable und

modification that in sub

(a)

“sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as

references to “thirty

respectively; and

(b)

inserted, namely:

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the

investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court

may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor

indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific

reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period

of

eighty days:

1613-2024 (O&M)

activities and his role in handling ransom money and acting as a carrier of

consignments has been clearly disclosed in the statement of the co

Nachhatar Singh @ Moti and therefore, in terms of Section 43

UAPA, the appellant should be denied bail. However, it is

by the State counsel that charges are yet to be framed against the appellant

and the trial in which approximately 25 prosecution witnesses are to be

is yet to begin.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their

able assistance the record of the case has also been examined.

At the outset it would be apposite to refer to Section 43

the UAPA. The same reads as follows:-

43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the

Code.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any

other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be

deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of

clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as

defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.

(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case

involving an offence punishable und

modification that in sub-section (2),

(a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and

“sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as

references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days”

respectively; and

(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be

inserted, namely:—

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the

investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court

may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor

indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific

reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period

of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and

eighty days:

Page 6 of 17

handling ransom money and acting as a carrier of

consignments has been clearly disclosed in the statement of the co-accused

Nachhatar Singh @ Moti and therefore, in terms of Section 43-D(5) of the

UAPA, the appellant should be denied bail. However, it is fairly submitted

by the State counsel that charges are yet to be framed against the appellant

and the trial in which approximately 25 prosecution witnesses are to be

have been heard and with their

able assistance the record of the case has also been examined.

At the outset it would be apposite to refer to Section 43-D of

43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any

other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be

deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of

section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as

defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.

Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case

involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the

section (2),—

the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and

“sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as

days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days”

after the proviso, the following provisos shall be

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the

investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court

may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor

indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific

reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period

ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and

CRA-D-1613

Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation

under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for

police custody from judicial custody of any person in

custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing

so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such

police custody.

(3)

involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the

modification that

(a)

(i)

reference to “the Central Government or the State

Government.”;

(ii)

as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the

State Government, as the case may be”; and

(b)

Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central

Government or the State Government, as the case may be”.

(4)

relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused

of having committed an offence punishable under this Act

(5)

person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV

and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on

his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an

opportunity of being heard on the appl

Provided that such accused person shall not be released on

bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case

diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of

the opinion that there are reasonable grounds f

that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

(6)

section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or

any

(7)

and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an

offence punishable

and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except

in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be

recorded in writing.

1613-2024 (O&M)

Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation

under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for

police custody from judicial custody of any person in

custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing

so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such

police custody.

(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in r

involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the

modification that—

(a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof

(i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a

reference to “the Central Government or the State

Government.”;

(ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed

as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the

State Government, as the case may be”; and

(b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to “the State

Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central

Government or the State Government, as the case may be”.

(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in

relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused

of having committed an offence punishable under this Act

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no

person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV

and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on

his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an

opportunity of being heard on the appl

Provided that such accused person shall not be released on

bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case

diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of

the opinion that there are reasonable grounds f

that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub

section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or

any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub

and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an

offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen

and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except

in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be

recorded in writing.”

Page 7 of 17

Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation

under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for

police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial

custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing

so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such

Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case

involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the

section (1) thereof—

to “the State Government” shall be construed as a

reference to “the Central Government or the State

to “order of the State Government” shall be construed

as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the

State Government, as the case may be”; and

section (2) thereof, to “the State

Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central

Government or the State Government, as the case may be”.

Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in

relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused

of having committed an offence punishable under this Act

ything contained in the Code, no

person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV

and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on

his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an

opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:

Provided that such accused person shall not be released on

bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case

diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of

the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-

section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or

other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5)

and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an

under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen

and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except

in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be

CRA-D-1613

13. As per Section 43

offence punishable under chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in

custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an

opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such release

and if the Court, on perusing the case

173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accusations against such person are prima facie proved. Section 43

D (6) further stipulates that restrictions for the grant of b

Section 43-D (5) would be in addition to the restrictions provided under the

Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

14. The allegation against the ap

statement of co

recovered a sum of Rs.50,000/

Nachhatar Singh @ Moti had hidden it even though

of the said hidden spo

one Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta b

this stage no link evidence has been

present appellant was

Singh @ Moti became aware of the fact that th

gotten the money

recovery of any incriminating material has been effected from the appellant

and even after completion of the investigation the allegations by the

prosecution qua

on record to show how the location from where the alleged recovery of

Rs.50,000/- was made by the appellant was shared to him and the manner

and mode by which the co

1613-2024 (O&M)

As per Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, no person accused of an

ffence punishable under chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in

custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an

opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such release

and if the Court, on perusing the case diary or the report filed under Section

173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accusations against such person are prima facie proved. Section 43

D (6) further stipulates that restrictions for the grant of b

D (5) would be in addition to the restrictions provided under the

Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

The allegation against the appellant

statement of co-accused Nachhatar Singh @ Moti is that he had

recovered a sum of Rs.50,000/- from a place where the co

tar Singh @ Moti had hidden it even though

of the said hidden spot were shared with one

Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta by Nachhatar Singh @ Moti. At

this stage no link evidence has been brought on record to show how the

present appellant was informed of the said location and how Nachhatar

Singh @ Moti became aware of the fact that th

gotten the money recovered when the appellant

recovery of any incriminating material has been effected from the appellant

and even after completion of the investigation the allegations by the

ua the appellant remained vague as nothing has been brought

on record to show how the location from where the alleged recovery of

was made by the appellant was shared to him and the manner

and mode by which the co-accused Nachhatar Singh became

Page 8 of 17

D (5) of the UAPA, no person accused of an

ffence punishable under chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in

custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an

opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such release

diary or the report filed under Section

173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accusations against such person are prima facie proved. Section 43-

D (6) further stipulates that restrictions for the grant of bail specified in

D (5) would be in addition to the restrictions provided under the

Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

pellant based on a disclosure

Nachhatar Singh @ Moti is that he had gotten

from a place where the co-accused

tar Singh @ Moti had hidden it even though the picture and location

one Lakhbir Singh @ Landa and

y Nachhatar Singh @ Moti. At

brought on record to show how the

of the said location and how Nachhatar

Singh @ Moti became aware of the fact that the present appellant had

when the appellant was already in custody. No

recovery of any incriminating material has been effected from the appellant

and even after completion of the investigation the allegations by the

vague as nothing has been brought

on record to show how the location from where the alleged recovery of

was made by the appellant was shared to him and the manner

accused Nachhatar Singh became aware of the

CRA-D-1613

fact that the same was recovered by the appellant.

brought on record to show the connection between Lakhbir Singh @ Landa

and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta. The appellant was not

named in the FIR and was nom

statement of co

15. The investigation qua the appellant is complete and the

prosecution does not require him for such purpose.

16. The appellant has undergone a period of 03 years,

and 17 days in actual custody and till date the trial has not begun as the

charges are yet to be framed.

17. It remains undisputed that coordinate Benches of this Court

have already granted regular bail to eight

details of which are tabulated below:

Sr.

No.

Name of co

1 Manjinder Singh

2. Simranjeet Singh

3. Ranjit Singh @

Harjit Singh

4. Gurjashanpreet

Singh

5. Satnam Singh

6. Gurlal Singh

7. Sukhdev Singh @

Shera

8. Jograj

18. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the

fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the

right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments that long custody b

1613-2024 (O&M)

fact that the same was recovered by the appellant.

brought on record to show the connection between Lakhbir Singh @ Landa

and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta. The appellant was not

named in the FIR and was nominated as an accused only on the

statement of co-accused Nachhatar Singh.

The investigation qua the appellant is complete and the

prosecution does not require him for such purpose.

The appellant has undergone a period of 03 years,

and 17 days in actual custody and till date the trial has not begun as the

charges are yet to be framed.

It remains undisputed that coordinate Benches of this Court

dy granted regular bail to eight of the appellant’s co

tails of which are tabulated below:-

Name of co-accused Case number

Manjinder Singh CRA-D-704-

2023

Simranjeet Singh CRA-D-910-

2023

Ranjit Singh @

Harjit Singh

CRA-D-1179-

2023

Gurjashanpreet

CRA-D-1369-

2023

Satnam Singh CRA-D-629-

2024

Gurlal Singh CRA-D-421-

2023

Sukhdev Singh @

CRA-D-289-

2023

Jograj Singh @ Jog CRA-D-1707-

2024

Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the

fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the

right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments that long custody b

Page 9 of 17

fact that the same was recovered by the appellant. Nothing has been

brought on record to show the connection between Lakhbir Singh @ Landa

and Satbir Singh @ Satnam Singh @ Satta. The appellant was not originally

inated as an accused only on the disclosure

The investigation qua the appellant is complete and the

prosecution does not require him for such purpose.

The appellant has undergone a period of 03 years, 01 month

and 17 days in actual custody and till date the trial has not begun as the

It remains undisputed that coordinate Benches of this Court

of the appellant’s co-accused, the

Status Date of order

Allowed 01.10.2024

Allowed 30.09.2024

Allowed 18.09.2024

Allowed 06.08.2024

Allowed 01.10.2024

Allowed 18.09.2024

Allowed 16.10.2024

Allowed 28.10.2025

Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the

fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the

right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the

CRA-D-1613

accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. In the instant case, none of the 25 prosecution

witnesses has been examined. It would be difficult to hazard a guess about

the conclusion of trial, when all the 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be

examined. The appellant is in custody for

The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the

lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes a p

19. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of

been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail

under UAPA. Article 2

speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to

grant bail to an under

also been held that the embargo under Section 43

negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced

hereunder:-

“It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions

like Section 43

of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation

of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of

pro

legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such

provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial

being completed within a reasonable time and the period of

incarceration al

part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would

safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43

D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail

or for wholesale breach of cons

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Instead, Section 43

possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in

addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the

offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the

1613-2024 (O&M)

accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. In the instant case, none of the 25 prosecution

witnesses has been examined. It would be difficult to hazard a guess about

n of trial, when all the 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be

examined. The appellant is in custody for 03

The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the

lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes a p

Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra)

been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail

under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides right to

speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to

grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has

also been held that the embargo under Section 43

negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced

“It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions

like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability

of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation

of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of

proceedings, the Courts are expected to appreciate the

legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such

provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial

being completed within a reasonable time and the period of

incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial

part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would

safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43

D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail

or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Instead, Section 43-D(5) of UAPA merely provides another

possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in

addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the

offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the

Page 10 of 17

accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. In the instant case, none of the 25 prosecution

witnesses has been examined. It would be difficult to hazard a guess about

n of trial, when all the 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be

years, 01 month and 17 days.

The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the

lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes a punishment in itself.

Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court

Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has

been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail

1 of the Constitution of India provides right to

speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to

trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has

also been held that the embargo under Section 43-D of UAPA would not

negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced

“It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions

D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability

of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation

of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of

ceedings, the Courts are expected to appreciate the

legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such

provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial

being completed within a reasonable time and the period of

ready undergone has exceeded a substantial

part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would

safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-

D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail

titutional right to speedy trial.

D(5) of UAPA merely provides another

possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in

addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the

offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the

CRA-D-1613

witnesses o

absconsion etc.”

20. In the case of

has held that generally pre

necessary to maintain purity in the course of tri

accused from being a fugitive from justice or to prevent further commission

of an offence. Once it is apparent that a timely trial is not possible and the

accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Co

would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail as any form of

deprival of liberty must be proportionate to the facts of the case and also

follow a just and fair procedure. A balance must be made between the

prosecution’s right to lead evidence o

beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rights guaranteed

under Part-III of the Constitution. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced

hereunder:-

“This Court has already accepted right of an accused u

the said offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail

founding such right on Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment,

long period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to

enlarg

provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre conviction

detention is necessary to collect evidence (at the investigation

stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to

prevent an acc

detention is also necessary to prevent further commission of

offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and

seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by

an accused, detention before conclus

investigation and post

law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of deprival of

liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and must be justified on the ground of being

following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be

proportionate in the facts of a given case. These would be the

overarching principles which the law Courts would have to

apply while testing prosecution’s plea of pre

both at investigation and post

1613-2024 (O&M)

witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by

absconsion etc.”

In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen (supra)

has held that generally pre-conviction detention at the investigation stage is

necessary to maintain purity in the course of tri

accused from being a fugitive from justice or to prevent further commission

of an offence. Once it is apparent that a timely trial is not possible and the

accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Co

would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail as any form of

deprival of liberty must be proportionate to the facts of the case and also

follow a just and fair procedure. A balance must be made between the

prosecution’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges

beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rights guaranteed

III of the Constitution. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced

“This Court has already accepted right of an accused u

the said offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail

founding such right on Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment,

long period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to

enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail restricting

provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre conviction

detention is necessary to collect evidence (at the investigation

stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to

prevent an accused from being fugitive from justice. Such

detention is also necessary to prevent further commission of

offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and

seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by

an accused, detention before conclus

investigation and post-chargesheet stage has the sanction of

law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of deprival of

liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and must be justified on the ground of being

following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be

proportionate in the facts of a given case. These would be the

overarching principles which the law Courts would have to

apply while testing prosecution’s plea of pre

both at investigation and post-charge

Page 11 of 17

r chance of the accused evading the trial by

Shoma Kanti Sen (supra), the Supreme Court

conviction detention at the investigation stage is

necessary to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an

accused from being a fugitive from justice or to prevent further commission

of an offence. Once it is apparent that a timely trial is not possible and the

accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Court

would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail as any form of

deprival of liberty must be proportionate to the facts of the case and also

follow a just and fair procedure. A balance must be made between the

f its choice and establish the charges

beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rights guaranteed

III of the Constitution. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced

“This Court has already accepted right of an accused under

the said offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail

founding such right on Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment,

long period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to

e an accused on bail in spite of the bail restricting

provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre conviction

detention is necessary to collect evidence (at the investigation

stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to

used from being fugitive from justice. Such

detention is also necessary to prevent further commission of

offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and

seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by

an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the

chargesheet stage has the sanction of

law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of deprival of

liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable,

following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be

proportionate in the facts of a given case. These would be the

overarching principles which the law Courts would have to

apply while testing prosecution’s plea of pre-trial detention,

charge-sheet stage.”

CRA-D-1613

21. The Supreme Court in the case of

Maharashtra and another (supra)

accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The

relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference

was made to the judgment of Jayen

vs

earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State

Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh

(UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), the factor

under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that

the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the

evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a

reasonable possibility of the presence of the accu

secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses

being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the

State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail.

Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 a

21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations

and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed

since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the

appellants have made out a case for granting bail.

Allegations again

reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing

with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act,

we have referred to the materials available against them at

this stage. These materials cannot

of the appellants

others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.”

22. In the case of

Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh (supra)

life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be

restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive

statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused

undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed.

In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in

the case of interpretation

1613-2024 (O&M)

The Supreme Court in the case of

Maharashtra and another (supra) has held that serious allegations against

accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The

relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference

was made to the judgment of Jayen

vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two

earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State

Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh

(UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), the factor

under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that

the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the

evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a

reasonable possibility of the presence of the accu

secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses

being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the

State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail.

Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 a

21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations

and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed

since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the

appellants have made out a case for granting bail.

Allegations against them no doubt are serious, but for that

reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing

with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act,

we have referred to the materials available against them at

this stage. These materials cannot

of the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the

others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.”

In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed

Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh (supra)

life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be

restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive

y provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused

undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed.

In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in

the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a

Page 12 of 17

The Supreme Court in the case of Vernon versus The State of

has held that serious allegations against

accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The

relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference

was made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal -

State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two

earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State -vs- Jagjit

Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh -vs- State of

(UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), the factors for granting bail

under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that

the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the

evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a

reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being

secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses

being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the

State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail.

Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and

21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations

and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed

since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the

appellants have made out a case for granting bail.

st them no doubt are serious, but for that

reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing

with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act,

we have referred to the materials available against them at

this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention

, pending final outcome of the case under the

others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.”

Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed

Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), it has been held that right to

life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be

restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive

y provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-

undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed.

In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in

of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a

CRA-D-1613

constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of

law, of which liberty is an intrinsic part. The relevant extract thereof is

reproduced hereunder:

“In Gurwinder Singh (sup

placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court

distinguished K.A. Najeeb (supra) holding that the appellant in

K.A. Najeeb (supra) was in custody for five years and that the

trial 25 of the appellant in that case w

other co

were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in

Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that

twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have

been ex

this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in

trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground

to grant bail.

This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life

and

Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A

constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to

an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a

penal statute if it fi

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been

infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not

come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal

statute, howsoever stringent

has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of

which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a

particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant

bail. But it would be very wrong to

statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the

very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of

the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three

Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judg

Xxxxxx

continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. ”

23. In the case of

Maharashtra, another (supra)

criminals are not born but made. Howsoever

accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of

India. Moreover, the purpose of bail is only to secure the attendance of the

accused at the trial and bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment.

1613-2024 (O&M)

constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of

law, of which liberty is an intrinsic part. The relevant extract thereof is

reproduced hereunder:-

“In Gurwinder Singh (supra) on which reliance has been

placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court

distinguished K.A. Najeeb (supra) holding that the appellant in

K.A. Najeeb (supra) was in custody for five years and that the

trial 25 of the appellant in that case w

other co-accused whose trial had concluded whereupon they

were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in

Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that

twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have

been examined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of

this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in

trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground

to grant bail.

This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life

and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A

constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to

an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a

penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been

infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not

come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal

statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court

has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of

which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a

particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant

bail. But it would be very wrong to

statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the

very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of

the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three

Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judg

Xxxxxx

continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. ”

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of

Maharashtra, another (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that

criminals are not born but made. Howsoever

accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of

India. Moreover, the purpose of bail is only to secure the attendance of the

accused at the trial and bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment.

Page 13 of 17

constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of

law, of which liberty is an intrinsic part. The relevant extract thereof is

ra) on which reliance has been

placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court

distinguished K.A. Najeeb (supra) holding that the appellant in

K.A. Najeeb (supra) was in custody for five years and that the

trial 25 of the appellant in that case was severed from the

accused whose trial had concluded whereupon they

were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in

Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that

twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have

amined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of

this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in

trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground

This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life

personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A

constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to

an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a

nds that the right of the accused-undertrial

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been

infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not

come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal

it may be, a constitutional court

has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of

which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a

particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant

bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular

statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the

very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of

the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three

Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.

continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. ”

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of

the Supreme Court has observed that

criminals are not born but made. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an

accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of

India. Moreover, the purpose of bail is only to secure the attendance of the

accused at the trial and bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment.

CRA-D-1613

The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and

again, in several judgments, such as

State of Bihar

Rehman Antulay v. R.S.

In the latter the court reemphasized the right to speedy trial,

and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has

no option:

“The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the

obligation of the State

to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.

Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of

accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society,

not versed in the ways of law, where they

competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is

wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused

demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a

relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle a

accused from complaining of infringement of his right to

speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon

a speedy trial.”

14.

reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under:

1613-2024 (O&M)

The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and

again, in several judgments, such as

State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul

Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225.

In the latter the court reemphasized the right to speedy trial,

and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has

no option:

“The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the

obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be,

to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.

Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of

accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society,

not versed in the ways of law, where they

competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is

wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused

demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a

relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle a

accused from complaining of infringement of his right to

speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon

a speedy trial.”

14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under:

“21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that

laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail,

may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not

concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the

individual is immeasurable. Jai

their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.

According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to

Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had

recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034

prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of

4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were

convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.

22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates

are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the

Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State

reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical

transformation” whereby the prisoner loses his identity.

He is known by a number. He loses personal

possessions. He has no personal relationships.

Psychological problems res

status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal

life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be

dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary

standards. Self-perception changes.

23. There is a further danger of the p

crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more

professional the crime, more honour is paid to the

criminal” (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison

Page 14 of 17

The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and

again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v.

reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul

reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225.

In the latter the court reemphasized the right to speedy trial,

and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has

“The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the

or the complainant, as the case may be,

to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.

Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of

accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society,

not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get

competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is

wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused

demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a

relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle an

accused from complaining of infringement of his right to

speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon

In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under:

“21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that

laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail,

may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not

concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the

individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and

their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.

According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to

Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had

recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034

in jails against total capacity of

4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were

convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.

22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates

are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the

A Convict Prisoner v. State

reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical

transformation” whereby the prisoner loses his identity.

He is known by a number. He loses personal

possessions. He has no personal relationships.

Psychological problems result from loss of freedom,

status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal

life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be

dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary

perception changes.

23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to

crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more

professional the crime, more honour is paid to the

criminal” (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison

CRA-D-1613

24. In a recent case in

Chhattisgarh, reported in

February 14, 2025, the Supreme

by the High Court, rejecting the bail of the appellant. As per the

prosecution’s case, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle carrying articles

which could be ordinarily related to Naxalite activities. Upon sear

conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in conscious possession of

the following articles:

“xxx

4.

were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious

possession of the appellant he

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

Xxx”

1613-2024 (O&M)

Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has

further deleterious effects

to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of

livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as

well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society.

The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these

aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to

the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials

especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent

provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”

xxxxxxx

18. Criminals are not born but made. The

potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any

criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist

fundamental is often missed when dealing with

delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a

past and every sinner a future. When a cr

committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making

the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be

social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion

or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of

circumstances, or the manife

milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other

privations.”

In a recent case in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of

, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322

February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court set-aside the impugned order passed

by the High Court, rejecting the bail of the appellant. As per the

prosecution’s case, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle carrying articles

which could be ordinarily related to Naxalite activities. Upon sear

conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in conscious possession of

the following articles:

“xxx

4. The search was undertaken and the following articles

were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious

possession of the appellant herein:

(i) 95 pair of shoes

(ii) Green black printed cloth

(iii) Two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metere

(iv) LED lens and

(v) Walki talki and other articles.

Xxx”

Page 15 of 17

Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has

further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs

to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of

livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as

well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society.

The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these

ause in the event of an acquittal, the loss to

the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials –

especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent

provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”

18. Criminals are not born but made. The human

potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any

criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist

fundamental is often missed when dealing with

delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a

past and every sinner a future. When a crime is

committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making

the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be

social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion

or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of

circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a

milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other

Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of

2025 SCC OnLine SC 322, by a judgment dated

aside the impugned order passed

by the High Court, rejecting the bail of the appellant. As per the

prosecution’s case, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle carrying articles

which could be ordinarily related to Naxalite activities. Upon search being

conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in conscious possession of

The search was undertaken and the following articles

were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious

rein:-

Two bundles of electric wire each of 100 metere

Walki talki and other articles.

CRA-D-1613

25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no

reason to deny regular bail to the appellant even though he is facing trial for

commission of offences under UAPA. Considering the fact that the

appellant is in custody for 03 years,

trial is not yet in sight as it

allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

26. Therefore, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty

Magistrate, the appellant is o

following conditions:

i. He shall furnish bond of Rs.10 lakh with two sureties of the

like amount;

ii. He shall deposit his passport, if any, in the Trial Court;

iii. He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and eve

unless specifically exempted;

iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when

summoned;

v. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

or who is cited as

vi. He shall not involve in any criminal activity;

vii. He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third

party right over immovable property or properties owned by

him;

viii. At the time of release of the appellant, the SHO of the area

where he

appellant shall mark his attendance before the said SHO on

every Monday till the conclusion of the trial and that

ix. He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of his

absence, the Trial Court m

eventuality he shall not claim re

27 While granting bail to the appellant, at the time of recording its

satisfaction, the Special Court/Duty Magistrate may also impose any further

condition as it

28. Needless to mention, if

further condition(s) which may be imposed by the Special Court/Duty

1613-2024 (O&M)

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no

reason to deny regular bail to the appellant even though he is facing trial for

commission of offences under UAPA. Considering the fact that the

appellant is in custody for 03 years, 01 month and 17 days and

is not yet in sight as it has not yet even commence

allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Therefore, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty

Magistrate, the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on the

following conditions:-

He shall furnish bond of Rs.10 lakh with two sureties of the

like amount;

He shall deposit his passport, if any, in the Trial Court;

He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and eve

unless specifically exempted;

He shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when

summoned;

He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

or who is cited as a witness;

He shall not involve in any criminal activity;

He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third

party right over immovable property or properties owned by

him;

At the time of release of the appellant, the SHO of the area

where he normally resides, shall be informed and that the

appellant shall mark his attendance before the said SHO on

every Monday till the conclusion of the trial and that

He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of his

absence, the Trial Court may proceed with the trial and in such

eventuality he shall not claim re-examination of any witness.

While granting bail to the appellant, at the time of recording its

satisfaction, the Special Court/Duty Magistrate may also impose any further

n as it may deem necessary.

Needless to mention, if any of the above conditions or any

further condition(s) which may be imposed by the Special Court/Duty

Page 16 of 17

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no

reason to deny regular bail to the appellant even though he is facing trial for

commission of offences under UAPA. Considering the fact that the

1 month and 17 days and end of the

has not yet even commenced, the appeal is

Therefore, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty

rdered to be released on regular bail on the

He shall furnish bond of Rs.10 lakh with two sureties of the

He shall deposit his passport, if any, in the Trial Court;

He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date,

He shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when

He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

He shall not involve in any criminal activity;

He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third

party right over immovable property or properties owned by

At the time of release of the appellant, the SHO of the area

normally resides, shall be informed and that the

appellant shall mark his attendance before the said SHO on

every Monday till the conclusion of the trial and that

He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of his

ay proceed with the trial and in such

examination of any witness.

While granting bail to the appellant, at the time of recording its

satisfaction, the Special Court/Duty Magistrate may also impose any further

any of the above conditions or any

further condition(s) which may be imposed by the Special Court/Duty

CRA-D-1613

Magistrate are breached by the appellant it would be open to the

prosecution to seek cancellatio

instant order.

29. It is clarified that the observation made through the instant

order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present

appeal for the grant of regular bail and that the same

to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(DEEPAK SIBAL

JUDGE

November 17

vandana

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Whether reportable

1613-2024 (O&M)

Magistrate are breached by the appellant it would be open to the

prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted to him through the

It is clarified that the observation made through the instant

order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present

appeal for the grant of regular bail and that the same

to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI)

17, 2025

ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

Page 17 of 17

Magistrate are breached by the appellant it would be open to the

n of the bail granted to him through the

It is clarified that the observation made through the instant

order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present

appeal for the grant of regular bail and that the same would not be construed

to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE