CRA-D-1729-202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARVINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. Present:- Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder for the appellant. Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) CRM-49659-202 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of days in filing the appeal. Heard. The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on merits. Consequently, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of decision : HARVINDER SINGH @ PRINCE Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the appellant. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. *** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) 2024 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of days in filing the appeal. Heard. The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on merits. Consequently, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 224 days in filing the appeal is condoned. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH A-D-1729-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2026 ... Appellant .. Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 224 The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and Consequently, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same days in filing the appeal is condoned. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and Consequently, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 MAIN CASE The appellant has challenged the order dated Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 28.07.2022, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein Police Station Baldev Nagar, Distrcit Ambala, 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was that he along with co objectionable banner on a tree. The appellant was disclosure statement of the co 15.07.2022, P.S. Kotwali, Patiala aforenoted FIR, he is not involved in any other criminal case. submits that no recovery of incriminating material has been effected from the appellant. custody for over 0 placed reliance upon the India versus K.A. Najeeb, State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCCOnline SC 498, been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused und grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. upon the judgment State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, @ Ashfaq Ans 2024 (O&M) The appellant has challenged the order dated Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby his .07.2022, registered under Sections 153 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein Police Station Baldev Nagar, Distrcit Ambala, has been Learned counsel for the appellant submits that was that he along with co-accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree. The appellant was statement of the co-accused namely Prem Singh , P.S. Kotwali, Patiala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the aforenoted FIR, he is not involved in any other criminal case. submits that no recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from the appellant. custody for over 03 years and 02 months. In support of his submissions, h reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of India versus K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCCOnline SC 498, that long custody by itself would entitle the accused und grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh -2- The appellant has challenged the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the his bail application in FIR No.398 153-A, 120-B IPC, Section 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’), at has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations against accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree. The appellant was arraigned as an accused on the namely Prem Singh in FIR No.148 dated Besides the involvement of the appellant in the aforenoted FIR, he is not involved in any other criminal case. He, however, either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from the appellant. The appellant is In support of his submissions, he has of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti Sen versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCCOnline SC 498, wherein it has that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal ari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh, bearing passed by the 398 of , at allegations against accused namely Prem Singh affixed an on the in FIR No.148 dated Besides the involvement of the appellant in the He, however, either any arms, ammunition or any other The appellant is in e has Union of Shoma Kanti Sen versus wherein it has er UAPA to relied Vernon versus The Sheikh Javed Iqbal , bearing SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra 2024, decided on 03.07.2024. 3. Learned that the appellant is in custody for 0 the appellant was in constant touch with Gurpatwant in order to spread ‘Khalistan himself made the banner which was affixed on the tree. ASI Gurwinder Singh, submits that examined. He also submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail 4. Heard. 5. The appellant was not named in the FIR. along with co-accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree No recovery of either material has been effected from him. 6. 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 accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb 2024 (O&M) riminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and ikh versus State of Maharashtra another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 03 years, 02 months and 2 was in constant touch with Gurpatwant in order to spread ‘Khalistan Movement’. He further himself made the banner which was affixed on the tree. ASI Gurwinder Singh, submits that 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been He also submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail Heard. The appellant was not named in the FIR. accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree No recovery of either in the form of fire arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him. 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 y itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) -3- riminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of has filed the custody certificate which indicates months and 22 days. He submits that was in constant touch with Gurpatwant Singh Pannu through Whatsapp further submits that the appellant had himself made the banner which was affixed on the tree. He, upon instructions from 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been He also submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. The appellant was not named in the FIR. It is alleged that the appellant accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree arms, ammunition or any other incriminating 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 y itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in (supra) wherein it has Javed Gulam Nabi bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of has filed the custody certificate which indicates days. He submits that Pannu through Whatsapp had He, upon instructions from 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been He also submits that in view of the serious allegations against the the appellant accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree. arms, ammunition or any other incriminating 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 y itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 in SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under UAPA. Ar 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 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 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 safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43 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 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 witnesses or chance of the accused evading the t 7. In the case of that generally pre 2024 (O&M) 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-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 hereunder:- “It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se 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 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 safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43 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 mere 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 witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion etc.” In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen(supra), that generally pre-conviction detention at the investigation stage is necessary to -4- been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail ticle 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 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 “It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like 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 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. 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 witnesses or chance of the rial by absconsion etc.” (supra), the Supreme Court has held at the investigation stage is necessary to been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail ticle 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 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 “It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like 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 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 approach would D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale ly 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 witnesses or chance of the the Supreme Court has held at the investigation stage is necessary to SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an accused from be 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 enl 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 respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part extract thereof is reproduced hereunder: “This Court has already accepted right of an accused under the said offences of the 1967 Act Article 21 (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to be a valid 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 conclusion of trial at the investigation and post the sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of deprival of liberty results in breach 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 2024 (O&M) maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an accused from be 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 prosecution’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “This Court has already accepted right of an accused under the said offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail founding such right on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail 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 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 conclusion of trial at the investigation and post the sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of deprival of liberty results in breach 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 -5- 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 arge 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 beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the III of the Constitution. The relevant “This Court has already accepted right of an accused under the said to be enlarged on bail founding such right on of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to und 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 prevent an accused from being fugitive from justice. Such detention is also necessary to prevent further commission of offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post-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 ing 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 arge 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 beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the The relevant “This Court has already accepted right of an accused under the said to be enlarged on bail founding such right on of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to und 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 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 before chargesheet stage has the sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 overarching principles which the law Courts would ha while testing prosecution’s plea of pre investigation and post 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra and another 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 Jaye Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State and Gurcharan Singh the facto discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the acc 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. appellants’ case founded on 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 th 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 justi 2024 (O&M) overarching principles which the law Courts would ha while testing prosecution’s plea of pre investigation and post-chargesheet stage.” he 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 Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State -vs 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 character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the acc 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. appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 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 th 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 justi -6- overarching principles which the law Courts would have to apply while testing prosecution’s plea of pre-trial detention, both at chargesheet stage.” he 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 “In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference was ndra Saraswathi Swamigal -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions vs- Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), rs 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 Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no doubt are serious, but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of ve to apply trial detention, both at 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 “In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference was State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), rs for granting bail under normal circumstances were offences, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the used not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be Juxtaposing the 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 em 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 fy continued detention of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 the appellants, provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.” 9. In the case of Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh(supra) 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 provisi statute if it finds that the right of the accused 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 pena 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. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder: “In Gurwinder Singh (supra) on wh 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 severe 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. I 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 2024 (O&M) 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), it has b 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 provisi statute if it finds that the right of the accused- 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 pena 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. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder: In Gurwinder Singh (supra) on wh 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 other co- 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. I 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 -7- pending final outcome of the case under the others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.” Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed , it has been held that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal -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 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 -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. I 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 pending final outcome of the case under the others Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed een 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 ons in a penal undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions l 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. The ich 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 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 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 restrained from granting bail to an accused on accoun statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in th 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 constitution 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 Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us. Xxxxxx continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. ” 10. In the case of Maharashtra, another not born out 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 be withheld as a form of punishment. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “13. several judgments, such as Bihar R.S. Nayak emphasized the right to speed facing prolonged trial, has no option: 2024 (O&M) restrained from granting bail to an accused on accoun 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 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 constitution 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 Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us. 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 not born out 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 be withheld as a form of punishment. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced “13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: -8- 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 undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not e 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 constitution 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 (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that criminals are not born out 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. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of 1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re y trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: t of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not e 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 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 rendered by a three Judge Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of has observed that criminals are not born out 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 the trial and bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of 1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re- y trial, and further held that an accused, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 14. 2024 (O&M) “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 promptitud 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 inadvis 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 h did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.” In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under: “21. Before parting, it would be 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 livi 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 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 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. Psychologi -9- “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 promptitud 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 h did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.” 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 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High 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. Psychologi “The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal able. 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 reported in 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. ng 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 of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 Xxxxxxx 18. 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 sinne 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 circums affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” 11. In view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for over 03 years, 0 allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 2024 (O&M) 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 standards. Self-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 Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has further deleteri 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 th 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 Criminals are not born out 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 privations.” In view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for 02 months and the end of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The -10- 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 perception changes. 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 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 aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.” orn out 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 r 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 tances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” In view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for and the end of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be 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 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 Community’ published in 1940). 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 ese aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and especially in cases, where special laws enact orn out 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 r 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 tances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of In view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for and the end of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is is ordered to be SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 released on regular bail requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of concerned:- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) 12. In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it 2024 (O&M) released on regular bail subject to following conditions besides bonds to the satisfaction of He shall furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties of ₹1 lakh each; He shall surrender his passport holding the same and is still with (iii) He shall appear before Trial Court on each and every date unless exempted by Court; (iv) 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 witness; He shall not involve in any criminal activity and if during the pendency of trial, he is found involved in commission of any offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency would be free to approach this court for recalling this order and cancellation of his bail; vii) He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third party right over his immovable property; viii) He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not claim re-examination of any witness. At the time of release of the appellant be informed. He shall appear before the SHO on every alternate Monday till the conclusion of the trial. In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it -11- subject to following conditions besides furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate ₹1 lakh with two sureties of ₹1 lakh He shall surrender his passport, if any, in the Trial Court, if he is holding the same and is still with him; He shall appear before 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 acquainted with the facts of the case He shall not involve in any criminal activity and if during the pendency of trial, he is found involved in commission of any offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency uld be free to approach this court for recalling this order and He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third party right over his immovable property; He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of their absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not examination of any witness. appellant, the concerned SHO shall He shall appear before the SHO on every conclusion of the trial. In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it furnishing of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate ₹1 lakh with two sureties of ₹1 lakh in the Trial Court, if he is He shall appear before 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 acquainted with the facts of the case He shall not involve in any criminal activity and if during the pendency of trial, he is found involved in commission of any offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency uld be free to approach this court for recalling this order and He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third that in case of their absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not SHO shall He shall appear before the SHO on every In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1729-202 would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting appellant without any further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or indirectly, then also the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial Court. 13. Needless to for the determin merits of the trial pending before the 14. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 18.02.2026 Swarnjits Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting appellant without any further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or ctly, then also the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are only determination of appeal seeking bail and shall have no bearing on the trial pending before the trial Court. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : -12- would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting appellant without any further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or ctly, then also the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial that the observations made hereinabove are only and shall have no bearing on the Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting appellant without any further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or of bail of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial that the observations made hereinabove are only and shall have no bearing on the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document