CRA-D-1594-202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 PREM 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-45785-202 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 : 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 delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH A-D-1594-2024 (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 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 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 20 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 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 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 named in the FIR arrested in an FIR No.148 dated 15.07.2022, registered under Sections 153 B, 120-B IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, Sections 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’ only) and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities Amendment Orders Act, at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala been affixed at a tree in Am aforenoted FIRs submits that no recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from the appell custody for over 02 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 under UAPA to grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that named in the FIR. The appellant was arraigned as an accused after he had been arrested in an FIR No.148 dated 15.07.2022, registered under Sections 153 B IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, Sections 13 Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’ only) and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities Amendment Orders Act, at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. It is alleged that a banner with objectionable words had been affixed at a tree in Ambala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the s, 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 appell custody for over 02 years and 06 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 under UAPA to grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. -2- The appellant has challenged the order dated 27.09.2024 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 appellant was not . The appellant was arraigned as an accused after he had been arrested in an FIR No.148 dated 15.07.2022, registered under Sections 153-A, 153 B IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, Sections 13 Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’ only) and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities Amendment Orders Act, at Police . It is alleged that a banner with objectionable words had bala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the , he is not involved in any other criminal case. He, however, submits that no recovery of 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 passed by the 398 of , at was not . The appellant was arraigned as an accused after he had been A, 153- B IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, Sections 13 Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’ only) and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities Amendment Orders Act, at Police . It is alleged that a banner with objectionable words had bala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the He, however, submits that no recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other The appellant is in e has Union of Shoma Kanti Sen versus wherein it has that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to ied SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 upon the judgment Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and State of Maharashtra on 03.07.2024. 3. Learned that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. He submits that the appellant had received Rs.25,000/ Singh from America order to spread the ‘Khalistan Singh, submits that submits that in view of the serious allegations to the concession of bail 4. Heard. 5. The appellant was not named in the FIR. received a sum of Rs.25,000/ arraigned as an accused Punjab. No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him and he has undergone an actual custody of over 02 years and 06 months 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 j 2024 (O&M) upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Sha State of Maharashtra another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. He submits that had received Rs.25,000/- through Western Union office sent by Gurjot Singh from America. He conspired with co-accused Harvinder Singh @ Prince in order to spread the ‘Khalistan Movement’. He, upon instructions from ASI Gurwinder Singh, submits that 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Heard. The appellant was not named in the FIR. received a sum of Rs.25,000/- for putting up an objectionable banner. arraigned as an accused after his arrest in another FIR registered i No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating rial has been effected from him and he has undergone an actual custody of over 02 years and 06 months 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 j -3- of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh, bearing Criminal Appeal Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. He submits that through Western Union office sent by Gurjot accused Harvinder Singh @ Prince in He, upon instructions from ASI Gurwinder 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He also against the appellant, he is not entitled The appellant was not named in the FIR. It is alleged that he had for putting up an objectionable banner. He had been another FIR registered in District Patiala, No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating rial has been effected from him and he has undergone an actual custody of over 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 Vernon versus The State of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq , bearing Criminal Appeal ikh versus bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. He submits that through Western Union office sent by Gurjot accused Harvinder Singh @ Prince in He, upon instructions from ASI Gurwinder He also against the appellant, he is not entitled It is alleged that he had been District Patiala, No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating rial has been effected from him and he has undergone an actual custody of over 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 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 a punishment in itself. 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 21 of the long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under 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 r 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 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 2024 (O&M) 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 shment in itself. 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 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 s 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 feguard 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 merely provides anoth ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well -4- 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 shment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under 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 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 igours 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 feguard 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 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 shment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme wherein it has been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under Constitution of India provides right to speedy trial and trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has also been held that the embargo 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 igours 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 D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale er possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well- SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsio 7. In the case of that generally pre 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 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 proc 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 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 (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to be a valid restricting provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 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 com same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence 2024 (O&M) settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsio In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen(supra), that generally pre-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 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 proc 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. 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 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 com same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence -5- 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.” (supra), the Supreme Court has held 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 prosecution’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the III of the Constitution. The relevant “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 of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to 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 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 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 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 edure. 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 The relevant “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 of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to ground to enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail- 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 mission of offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post the sanction of law broadly o 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 overarching principles which the law Courts 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 Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State and Gurcharan Singh the factors for granting bail under normal 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 accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with; the larger interest 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 2024 (O&M) alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before 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 overarching principles which the law Courts 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 allegation 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 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 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. 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 -6- alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post-chargesheet stage has n 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, 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 made to the judgment of Jayendra 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), 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 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 alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before chargesheet stage has n these reasonings. But any form of 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 would have to apply trial detention, both at Vernon versus The State of s 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 te 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), circumstances were 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 of the public or the State would be Juxtaposing the e Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no 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 con 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 provisions 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 penal st 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 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 fr 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 2024 (O&M) custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no 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 con 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 been 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 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 penal st 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 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. It -7- 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 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. It custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case 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 tinued detention of pending final outcome of the case under the others Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed 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 in a penal undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions atute, 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 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 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 lib 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 accused 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 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 und 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. Xxxxxx continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. ” 10. In the case of Maharashtra, another not born out but made. Howsoever serious a cr 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 hereunder:- 2024 (O&M) s 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 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 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. xxxxx 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 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 -8- s 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 erty 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 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, 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 er 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 ime 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 s 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 erty 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 right of the 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, 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 er 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 Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that criminals are ime 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 extract thereof is reproduced SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 “13. several judgments, such as Bihar R.S. Nayak emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no 14. 2024 (O&M) “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: “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 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 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 important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail 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 Ministr 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. -9- 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 emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, 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 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 et 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 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 Ministr 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 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- emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, “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 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 et 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 “21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws , 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 Xxxxxxx 18. potential in everyone is good and so, never write off 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 mak Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of 2024 (O&M) 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. 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 standards. Self-perception changes. 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but 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 belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate 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 irre 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 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 -10- 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 2, 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, y of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by 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 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.” 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 ing 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 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 2, 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, y of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, 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 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 parable), and especially in cases, where special laws enact Criminals are not born out but made. The human 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 ing 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted wi 11. In view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for over 2 years, 06 months allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The released on regular bail requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned:- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) v) vi) vii) viii) 2024 (O&M) 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 06 months and the end of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The released on regular bail subject to following conditions besides bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate 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 that in case of their absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not claim re-examination of any witness. -11- circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of th 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 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 or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ve 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 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. circumstances, 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 furnishing of bonds to the satisfaction 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 or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ve 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 He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of their absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1594-202 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 would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting appellant without any furthe 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 m Court. 13. Needless to for the determination of appeal seeking bail 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) 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 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 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- 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 would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting r 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 bail aking 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 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 would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting r reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or of bail aking appropriate application before the Trial that the observations made hereinabove are only and shall have no bearing on the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.02.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document