CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : M Mr. For the appellant Mr. Sartej Singh Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab. LAPITA BANERJI, J. The appellant has challenged the order dated October 31, 2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge power of Special Court, whereby his bail application in FIR No. 07.05.2020 registered under Sections 384, 465, 467, of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Section 25,54,59 of the Arms Act, (Prevention) Act, 1967 added Sections 120 Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but e 2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) RESERVED ON: AUGUST 21, 2025 DATE OF DECISION Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu Versus State of Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. Kuljinder Billing, Advocate, For the appellant. Mr. Sartej Singh Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab. LAPITA BANERJI, J. The appellant has challenged the order dated October 31, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kapurthala, exercising the power of Special Court, whereby his bail application in FIR No. 07.05.2020 registered under Sections 384, 465, 467, of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Section of the Arms Act, Sections 13/18/19 of Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA added Sections 120-B, 482, 121, 121-A, 122 of IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but except for recovery of one pistol of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (O&M) AUGUST 21, 2025 ATE OF DECISION:SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 ...Appellant ...Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sartej Singh Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab. The appellant has challenged the order dated October 31, I, Kapurthala, exercising the power of Special Court, whereby his bail application in FIR No.140 of 07.05.2020 registered under Sections 384, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 489 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Sections 13/18/19 of The Unlawful Activities ter referred to as “the UAPA”), later on A, 122 of IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities xcept for recovery of one pistol of .32 bore with SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 15 live cartridges and Rs.50,000/ material was submits that no case has been made out against the appellant by the prosecution wh any offence under the UAPA including the main accused CRA-D-686-2022, have July/August 2022. 3. In support of his submissions, the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of K.A. Najeeb, Maharashtra and another, State of Maharashtra and another Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 Maharashtra and another been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Bhatia also places reliance Sugathan and another bore pistol along with Rs.50,000/ still nothing has been between the present appellant and other co of the titled case 2022 (O&M) 15 live cartridges and Rs.50,000/- in cash, no other incriminating as alleged to have been recovered from him. He further ts that no case has been made out against the appellant by the ution which could even suggest that the accused has committed any offence under the UAPA Act and that f including the main accused namely, Baljinder Singh @ Billa appellant in 2022, have been granted the ben August 2022. n support of his submissions, he the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498 State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 been held 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. Mr. Mr. Bhatia also places reliance up Sugathan and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203, to submit that even if a bore pistol along with Rs.50,000/- cash was recovered still nothing has been brought on record to establish criminal conspiracy between the present appellant and other co-accused of the titled case is reproduced hereinafter: in cash, no other incriminating recovered from him. He further ts that no case has been made out against the appellant by the that the accused has committed and that five other co-accused, namely, Baljinder Singh @ Billa appellant in been granted the benefit of interim bail since he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. The 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, aved Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the upon State of Kerala v. P. , to submit that even if a .32 cash was recovered from the appellant, brought on record to establish criminal conspiracy accused. The relevant extract SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) “xxx 12. evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of interference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to inference of an agreement between two or more person to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the a circu value, should indicate the meeting of the minds conspirators for the intended act or an act which is not illegal, here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in f circumstances inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. 13. that Sections 120 conspiracy in India in line with English law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the u render them conspirators but the later does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission 2022 (O&M) “xxx 12. We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of interference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the conspirators. This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more person to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. 13. In Kehar Singh v. State (Del that Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC have brought the law of conspiracy in India in line with English law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the later does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of interference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a the conspirators. This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more person to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case cused beyond reasonable doubt. The case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the object of committing an illegal by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done urtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) it was noticed B IPC have brought the law of conspiracy in India in line with English law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come nlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the later does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the sharing the unlawful act is not SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) sufficient. continues frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one of of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120 Indian Penal Code. Xxx” 5. Notice of motion was issued on November 30, 2022. 6. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, short reply by way of Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the appellant was involved in anti co-accused Lovepreet Singh accused were i ammunitions and were committing dacoity, extortion and involved in smuggling of drugs several people namely Baljinder Singh @ Billa, Moh Singh and Maninder Singh @ Happy found present and were apprehended from @ Love. Several high tech arms and ammunitions along with drug money of Rs.7,00,818/ luxury cars were recovered. committing terrorist act/s, none of them should be release 8. He relies on decision of Apex Court dated February 07, 2024 in Gurwinder Singh v 2022 (O&M) sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120 Indian Penal Code. Xxx” Notice of motion was issued on November 30, 2022. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, short reply by way of an affidavit dated February 27, 2025 Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sultanpur Lodhi, District Learned State counsel submits that the appellant was involved in anti-national activities. A raid was con accused Lovepreet Singh on the basis of a secret information that accused were in possession of high technology imported arms and and were committing dacoity, extortion and involved in smuggling of drugs and planning to commit affray several people namely Baljinder Singh @ Billa, Moh Singh and Maninder Singh @ Happy, Sukhjinder Singh found present and were apprehended from the house ove. Several high tech arms and ammunitions along with drug Rs.7,00,818/-, 100 Australian dollars, two passports and three were recovered. Since all had the common intention of terrorist act/s, none of them should be release He relies on decision of Apex Court dated February 07, Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another A conspiracy is a continuing offence which till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120-B of the Notice of motion was issued on November 30, 2022. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the State has filed a dated February 27, 2025 of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sultanpur Lodhi, District Learned State counsel submits that the appellant was A raid was conducted at the house of on the basis of a secret information that n possession of high technology imported arms and and were committing dacoity, extortion and involved in and planning to commit affray. During the raid, several people namely Baljinder Singh @ Billa, Mohit Sharma, Mangal , Sukhjinder Singh-appellant, were the house of Lovepreet Singh ove. Several high tech arms and ammunitions along with drug , 100 Australian dollars, two passports and three Since all had the common intention of terrorist act/s, none of them should be released on bail. He relies on decision of Apex Court dated February 07, and another, (2024) 2 SCC SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) Criminal 676, to submit that Section 43 complete embargo on the powers of Special Court on bail and that t is severely restricted in scope. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter: shows that apart Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to Sub complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the Court, ‘on perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not bond. It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act. In that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remain UAP Act. 26 ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft is the exception’ does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5) of the words as found in section 437 (1) CrPC, released’ make bail, the exception and jail, the rule. Xxx 2 quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a 2022 (O&M) , to submit that Section 43-D (5) complete embargo on the powers of Special Court and that the exercise of general power to grant bail under UAPA restricted in scope. The relevant extract is reproduced “xxx 25. A bare reading of Sub-section (5) of Section 43D shows that apart from the fact that Sub Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Sect complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the Court, ‘on perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond. It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act. In that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remain UAP Act. 26. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase is the exception’ – unless circumstances justif does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5) – ‘shall not be released’ in contrast with the form of the words as found in section 437 (1) CrPC, released’ – suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule. Xxx 28. In this background, the test for rejection quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a D (5) of the UAPA Act puts a complete embargo on the powers of Special Court to release the accused he exercise of general power to grant bail under UAPA restricted in scope. The relevant extract is reproduced section (5) of Section 43D from the fact that Sub-section (5) bars a Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on section (5) of Section 43D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the Court, ‘on perusal of the case diary or the report made under the Code of Criminal Procedure’, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such be released on bail or on his own bond. It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute to the one found in Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act. In that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remains unique to the The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-a-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must quoted phrase – ‘bail is the rule, jail unless circumstances justify otherwise – does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to ct is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section l not be released’ in contrast with the form of the words as found in section 437 (1) CrPC, – ‘may be suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule. In this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if after SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are rejection of bail is not satisfied proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position Sub restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force Xxx” 9. perused the material on record. 10. The allegation against the appellant is that when the house of prosecution story, rounds of .30 bore along with drug from the appellant. 11. From the reply during investigation, the prosecution recorded disclosure statement dated May 17, 2020, of purportedly stated that incident along with Verna car. The said incident was repeated in the disclosure statement dated September 07, 2020 mentioned the present appellant’s name in the car snatching incident. 12. It attributed to the 2022 (O&M) hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. Xxx” . This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The allegation against the appellant is that the house of Lovepreet Singh @ Love prosecution story, one .32 bore pistol with 07 rounds of 30 bore along with drug money of Rs.50,000/ from the appellant. From the reply filed on behalf of the State, investigation, the prosecution recorded disclosure statement dated May 17, 2020, of the co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Billa purportedly stated that present appellant was involved in a car snatching incident along with him and also fired a bullet Verna car. The said incident was repeated in the disclosure statement September 07, 2020 of Gurpreet Singh mentioned the present appellant’s name in the car snatching incident. t also appears from the reply that no specific role has been attributed to the appellant in the car snatching incident nor has any hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied – that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position is made clear by (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and The allegation against the appellant is that he was present Lovepreet Singh @ Love was raided. As per the 32 bore pistol with 07 rounds of .32 bore and 08 money of Rs.50,000/- was recovered filed on behalf of the State, it transpires that investigation, the prosecution recorded disclosure statement dated accused Baljinder Singh @ Billa, who present appellant was involved in a car snatching bullet at the foot of the driver of Verna car. The said incident was repeated in the disclosure statement of Gurpreet Singh @ Gora, who also mentioned the present appellant’s name in the car snatching incident. that no specific role has been in the car snatching incident nor has any SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) incriminating material evidencing towards Except the above, the l further evidence collected against the offence committed 13. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the right to a speedy trial. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would enti UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant months and 30 days. situation where the leng punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in 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 g bail to an unde been held that the embargo under Section 43 negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. for ready reference “43 Code. 2022 (O&M) incriminating material been found against the evidencing towards his involvement with any offence under th Except the above, the learned State counsel was unable to show any evidence collected against the appellant committed under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the speedy trial. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would enti grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has undergone an actual sentence of 05 years 02 months and 30 days. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) 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 g bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has also been held that the embargo under Section 43 negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 43-D of UAPA is reproduced hereinaft for ready reference:- 43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.— been found against the appellant at this stage, his involvement with any offence under the UAPA. earned State counsel was unable to show any appellant connecting him to an Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the speedy trial. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of has undergone an actual sentence of 05 years 02 The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a thy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the (supra), wherein it has 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 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 D of UAPA is reproduced hereinafter D. Modified application of certain provisions of the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) (1) any other law, every offence punishable under this Act be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub (a) “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and (b) inserted, “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the speci reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days: Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody. (3) involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that (a) (i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government.”; (ii) as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the State (b) Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the 2022 (O&M) (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2), (a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and (b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:— “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the speci reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days: Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody. (3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that— (a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof (i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government.”; (ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”; and (b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject section (2),— the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety the proviso, the following provisos shall be “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody. Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the (1) thereof— (i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State to “order of the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the Government, as the case may be”; and section (2) thereof, to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) Central Government or the State Government, as the may be”. (4) to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act . (5) person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under sec 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (6) section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (7) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exc reasons to be recorded in writing. The relevant extract of the “ restrictions like Section 43 oust 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 p 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 t provisions like Section 43 sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. xxxxxxxxxxxx 2022 (O&M) Central Government or the State Government, as the may be”. (4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under sec 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against t provisions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. xxxxxxxxxxxx Central Government or the State Government, as the case Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub- section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or eptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.” is as follows: It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory D(5) of UAPA per se does not the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rovisions 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 (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 19. xxxxxx Instead, Section 43 possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the absc 14. The Supre that serious allegations against accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “44. reference was made to the judgment of Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases of Singh v. State of (UT of Delhi) 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 peculia presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being t the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rej the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that th 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. with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, we have referred to the m this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of the appellants case under the other provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act 15. In the case of has held that generally pre is necessary to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent 2022 (O&M) 19. xxxxxx Instead, Section 43-D (5) of UAPA merely provides 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 accused evading the trial by absconsion etc.” The Supreme Court in the case of that serious allegations against accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced 44. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali reference was made to the judgment of Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Singh v. State of (UT of Delhi) 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 t the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rej the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that th 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. 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 the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the other provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.” In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen (supra) has held that generally pre-conviction detention at the investigation stage is necessary to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent (5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing accused evading the trial by me Court in the case of Vernon (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 Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference was made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh v. 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 r to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. 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, aterials available against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify continued , pending final outcome of the case under the other provisions of the 1860 Code and the (supra), the Supreme Court conviction detention at the investigation stage is necessary to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 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 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 g relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 37. SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a party), Constitutional Court is not strictly bound by the prohibitory provisions of grant of bail in the 1967 Act and can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to release an accused on bail who has been incarcerated for a long period of time, r on Article 21 of Constitution of India. This decision was sought to be distinguished judgment of this Court in the case of it has been held: 2022 (O&M) an accused from being a fugitive from justice or to prevent further 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 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. relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter: xxx 37. In the case of K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a party), Constitutional Court is not strictly bound by the prohibitory provisions of grant of bail in the 1967 Act and can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to release an accused on bail who has been incarcerated for a long period of time, r on Article 21 of Constitution of India. This decision was sought to be distinguished by Mr. Nataraj on facts relying on judgment of this Court in the case of it has been held: "32. The Appellant's counsel has relied upon the case of KA Najeeb (supra) to back its contention tha appellant has been in jail contrary to law laid down in the said argument may appear compelling at first glance, it lacks depth and substance. court was confronted with a circumstance wherein except the respondent-accused, other co already undergone trial and were sentenced to imprisonment of not exceeding eight years therefore this court's decision to consider bail was grounded in the anticipation of the impending sentence that the respondent accused might face upon conviction and since the respondent-accused had already served portion of the maximum imprisonment i.e., more than five years, this court took it as a factor influencing its an accused from being a fugitive from justice or to prevent further 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 In the case of K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 SCC 713], a three Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of us Aniruddha Bose, J was a party), has held that a Constitutional Court is not strictly bound by the prohibitory provisions of grant of bail in the 1967 Act and can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to release an accused on bail who has been incarcerated for a long period of time, relying on Article 21 of Constitution of India. This decision was Mr. Nataraj on facts relying on judgment of this Court in the case of it has been held:- "32. The Appellant's counsel has relied upon the case (supra) to back its contention that the appellant has been in jail for last five years which is contrary to law laid down in the said case. While this argument may appear compelling at first glance, it lacks depth and substance. In KA Najeeb's case this confronted with a circumstance wherein accused, other co-accused had already undergone trial and were sentenced to imprisonment of not exceeding eight years therefore this court's decision to consider bail was grounded in anticipation of the impending sentence that the respondent accused might face upon conviction and accused had already served portion of the maximum imprisonment i.e., more than five years, this court took it as a factor influencing its SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 38. bail is not a fundamental right. Secondly, to be entitled to be enlarged on bail, an accused charged with offences enumerated in Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, must fu do not accept the first part of this submission. 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. Th 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 provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre detention is 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 acc gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form 2022 (O&M) assessment to grant bail. Further, In KA Najeeb's case the trial of the respondent accused was severed from the other co-accused owing to his absconding and he was traced back in 2015 and was being separately tried thereafter and the NIA had filed a long list of witnesses that were left to be examined with reference to the said accused therefore this court was of the view of unlikelihood of completion of trial in near future. However, in the present case the trial is already under way and 22 witnesses including the protected witnesses have been examined. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organization involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the which might hamper the p Therefore, mere delay in offences as one involved in the on be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on the behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.” 38. Relying on this judgment, Mr. Nataraj, submits that bail is not a fundamental right. Secondly, to be entitled to be enlarged on bail, an accused charged with offences enumerated in Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, must fulfill the conditions specified in Se do not accept the first part of this submission. 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. Th 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 provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre 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 acc gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post- sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form assessment to grant bail. Further, In KA Najeeb's case the trial of the respondent accused was severed accused owing to his absconding and he was traced back in 2015 and was being separately tried thereafter and the NIA had filed a list of witnesses that were left to be examined with reference to the said accused therefore this court was of the view of unlikelihood of completion of trial in near future. However, in the present case the trial is already under way and 22 witnesses uding the protected witnesses have been examined. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organization of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case might hamper the process of justice. 23 delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot on be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on the behalf of the appellant ing on this judgment, Mr. Nataraj, submits that bail is not a fundamental right. Secondly, to be entitled to be enlarged on bail, an accused charged with offences enumerated in Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, must the conditions specified in Section 43D (5) thereof. We do not accept the first part of this submission. 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 necessary to collect evidence (at the investigation stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an accused from being fugitive from justice. Such detention is also necessary to prevent further commission of offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of -charge sheet stage has the sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 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 wou law Courts would have to apply while testing prosecution’s plea of pre charge 39. which we have note it with a qualification. The reasoning in also have to be examined, if it is the constitutional court which is examining prosecution's plea for retaining in custody an accused charged with He cited Najeeb High Court rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant was upheld. But this was a judgment in the given facts of th case and did not dislocate the axis of reasoning on constitutional ground enunciated in prosecution, another order of a coordinate Bench passed on 18 the petitioner's praye of the High Court under similar provisions of the 1967 Act was rejected by the coordinate Bench applying the ratio of proceeded in this judgment accepting the res provisions to be valid and applicable and then dealt with the individual allegations in terms of the proviso to Section 43 D the appellant is concerned, does not gain any premium from th 16. The case of distinguished in the present case observed that in the said case witnesses, including the prot The observations made had to be restricted to the context in which they were made. 2022 (O&M) 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 investigation and post charge sheet stage.” 39. As regards second part of Mr Nataraj's argument which we have noted in the preceding paragraph, we accept it with a qualification. The reasoning in also have to be examined, if it is the constitutional court which is examining prosecution's plea for retaining in custody an accused charged with He cited Gurwinder Singh in which the judgment of Najeeb was distinguished on facts and a judgment of the High Court rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant was upheld. But this was a judgment in the given facts of th case and did not dislocate the axis of reasoning on constitutional ground enunciated in prosecution, another order of a coordinate Bench passed on 18-1-2024, in Mazhar Khan v. NIA the petitioner's prayer for overturning a bail of the High Court under similar provisions of the 1967 Act was rejected by the coordinate Bench applying the ratio of Watali judgment and also considering proceeded in this judgment accepting the res provisions to be valid and applicable and then dealt with the individual allegations in terms of the proviso to Section 43 D (5) of the 1967 Act. Thus, the prosecution's case, so far as the appellant is concerned, does not gain any premium from the reasoning forming the basis of The case of Gurwinder Singh distinguished in the present case under discussion and it has been observed that in the said case the trial was already witnesses, including the protected witnesses had already been examined. The observations made in Gurwinder Singh’s had to be restricted to the context in which they were made. Page 13 of 23 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 ld be the overarching principles which the law Courts would have to apply while testing prosecution’s trial detention, both at investigation and post- As regards second part of Mr Nataraj's argument d in the preceding paragraph, we accept it with a qualification. The reasoning in Najeeb case would also have to be examined, if it is the constitutional court which is examining prosecution's plea for retaining in custody an accused charged with bail-restricting offences. in which the judgment of K.A. was distinguished on facts and a judgment of the High Court rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant was upheld. But this was a judgment in the given facts of that case and did not dislocate the axis of reasoning on constitutional ground enunciated in Najeeb. On behalf of the prosecution, another order of a coordinate Bench passed on NIA was cited. In this order, r for overturning a bail-rejection order of the High Court under similar provisions of the 1967 Act was rejected by the coordinate Bench applying the ratio and also considering Vernon. We have proceeded in this judgment accepting the restrictive provisions to be valid and applicable and then dealt with the individual allegations in terms of the proviso to Section 43- (5) of the 1967 Act. Thus, the prosecution's case, so far as the appellant is concerned, does not gain any premium from e reasoning forming the basis of Mazhar Khan (supra).’ [emphasis supplied]. Gurwinder Singh (supra) was clearly under discussion and it has been the trial was already going on and 22 cted witnesses had already been examined. Gurwinder Singh’s case (supra), therefore, had to be restricted to the context in which they were made. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 17. In the case of Supreme Court has observed that criminals are not born but made Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to 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 hereun “13. 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 th trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: 14. reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under: 2022 (O&M) In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Supreme Court has observed that criminals are not born but made Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to 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 hereof is reproduced hereunder: “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 reemphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: “The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they 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 i 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.” 14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain 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 Record recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that criminals are not born but made out. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a 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 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 e Court reemphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged “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 oorer 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 In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under: “21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 18. 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 miss 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 economi 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 18. In the case of Javed Ansari 2022 (O&M) 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials. 22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner loses his identity. He is known by a nu 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 becom 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 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 ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.” Xxxxxxx 18. 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 economi 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 the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ (supra), it has been held that right to life and personal 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials. t imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary perception changes. 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the ald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that especially in cases, where special laws enact ringent provisions, are taken up and concluded 18. 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 ed 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 Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ , it has been held that right to life and personal SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to 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 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. Furthermore, (supra) rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court was binding on a Two Judge Bench like present case under discussion Iqbal’s case (supra “31 has been placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court distinguished that the appellant in custody for five years and that the trial 25 of the appellant in that case was severed from the other co had concluded whereupon they were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in Gurwinder Singh, the trial including the protected witnesses have been examined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be u grant bail. 32. to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained f to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused 2022 (O&M) liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in 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. Furthermore, it was held that the view taken in rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court was binding on a Two Judge Bench like Gurwinder Singh’s present case under discussion. The relevant extract supra) is reproduced hereunder:- 31. In Gurwinder Singh’s case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court distinguished K.A. Najeeb’s that the appellant in K.A. Najeeb’s custody for five years and that the trial 25 of the appellant in that case was severed from the other co had concluded whereupon they were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have been examined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be u grant bail. 32. 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 f to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused- undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation 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. view taken in K.A. Najeeb’s case rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court was binding Gurwinder Singh’s case (supra) or the The relevant extract of Sheikh Javed - case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) holding K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) was in custody for five years and that the trial 25 of the appellant in that case was severed from the other co-accused whose trial had concluded whereupon they were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in Gurwinder Singh, the was already underway and that twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have been examined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused- SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restricti 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 f 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 K.A. Najeeb’s Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us. xxxxxx 33. Continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified xxx 19. In SCC 574, the appellant was, 18-A and 20 of the UAPA. He was arrested on July 12, 2022 and a charge-sheet was filed on January 07, 2023. The relevant part of the charge-sheet reads as follows “xxx 17.1 disturb the proposed visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister to Bihar by some suspected persons who had assembled in Phulwarisharif area. On 11.07.2022 at about 19:30 hrs, on secret information, a r officers of PS Phulwarisharif, Patna at the rented house/premises of Athar Parvej (A of documents “India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document: Not for Circulation”, Pamphlets “Popu and 30 copies in Urdu, 49 cloth flags, 02 magazines “Mulk ke liye Popular Front ke saath” and one copy of rent agreement on non Jalaluddin Khan (A Abdul Qayum Ansari. The recovered articles and a Samsung mobile phone having SIM card of accused Md. Jalaluddin (A anti Xxx” 2022 (O&M) undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restricti 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 K.A. Najeeb’s case (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us. xxxxxx 33. xxx Continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified xxx.” In Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India , the appellant was, inter-alia, charged under Sections 13, 18, A and 20 of the UAPA. He was arrested on July 12, 2022 and a sheet was filed on January 07, 2023. The relevant part of the sheet reads as follows: “xxx 17.1 Bihar Police had received information about a plan to disturb the proposed visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister to Bihar by some suspected persons who had assembled in Phulwarisharif area. On 11.07.2022 at about 19:30 hrs, on secret information, a raid was carried out by the police officers of PS Phulwarisharif, Patna at the rented house/premises of Athar Parvej (A of documents “India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document: Not for Circulation”, Pamphlets “Popular Front of India 20-2-2021” and 30 copies in Urdu, 49 cloth flags, 02 magazines “Mulk ke liye Popular Front ke saath” and one copy of rent agreement on non-judicial stamp by Farhat Bano w/o Md. Jalaluddin Khan (A-2) with tenant Atha Abdul Qayum Ansari. The recovered articles and a Samsung mobile phone having SIM card of accused Md. Jalaluddin (A-2) were seized in the instant case. They were related to anti-India activities.” Xxx” 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 acts 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, case (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 Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India reported in (2024) 10 , charged under Sections 13, 18, A and 20 of the UAPA. He was arrested on July 12, 2022 and a sheet was filed on January 07, 2023. The relevant part of the Bihar Police had received information about a plan to disturb the proposed visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister to Bihar by some suspected persons who had assembled in Phulwarisharif area. On 11.07.2022 at about 19:30 hrs, on aid was carried out by the police officers of PS Phulwarisharif, Patna at the rented house/premises of Athar Parvej (A-1) and recovered 05 sets of documents “India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document: Not for Circulation”, Pamphlets 2021” – 25 copies in Hindi and 30 copies in Urdu, 49 cloth flags, 02 magazines “Mulk ke liye Popular Front ke saath” and one copy of rent judicial stamp by Farhat Bano w/o Md. 2) with tenant Athar Parvej (A-1) son of Abdul Qayum Ansari. The recovered articles and a Samsung mobile phone having SIM card of accused Md. Jalaluddin 2) were seized in the instant case. They were related to SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the charge committed unlawful activities as defined in UAPA. produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised or incited the co Succinct reasoning under: “xxx 30. not possible to record a conclusion grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under UAPA is prima statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a mini impossible to record a prima reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under UAPA was prima brought on record. 31. no reason to reject the bail application filed by the appellant. 32. here that the Special Court and the High Court consider the material in the charge Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not ha allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. 33 stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification 2022 (O&M) The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that nothing in the charge-sheet showed that the appellant had taken part in or committed unlawful activities as defined in UAPA. produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised or incited the commission of terrorist acts or preparatory Succinct reasoning leading to the grant of bail is reproduced herein “xxx 30. Therefore, on plain reading of the charge not possible to record a conclusion grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under UAPA is prima-facie true. We have taken the charge statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a mini-trial. Looking at what we have held earlier, it is impossible to record a prima-facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under UAPA was prima-facie true. No antecedents of the appellant hav brought on record. 31. The upshot of the above discussion is that there was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the appellant. 32. Before we part with the judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court consider the material in the charge Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. 33. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification was of the opinion that nothing sheet showed that the appellant had taken part in or committed unlawful activities as defined in UAPA. No material was produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, mmission of terrorist acts or preparatory activity. leading to the grant of bail is reproduced herein Therefore, on plain reading of the charge-sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under UAPA facie true. We have taken the charge-sheet and the statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a we have held earlier, it is facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under UAPA was facie true. No antecedents of the appellant have been The upshot of the above discussion is that there was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the Before we part with the judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge-sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the ve any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rul out for grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Constitution. xxx” 21. In the case of “ another” SLP (Criminal) No.3655 of 2024 30, 2024, the petitioner was charged under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38 (1) 40, 22-A and 22 was in custody since May 06, 2020 and 40 out of 100 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Apex Court observed that continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice as there was no likelihood of early con the conditions that may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act) following two conditions were imposed as the conditions for grant of bail: 6 station once ever (ii) Judge on every date of the trial without fail, unless his presence is dispensed with by the trial Court, and shall cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial.” 22. In a recent case in Chhattisgarh, reported in dated February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court set order passed by the High the prosecution’s case 2022 (O&M) that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Constitution. xx” In the case of “Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh and SLP (Criminal) No.3655 of 2024, vide an order dated August 30, 2024, the petitioner was charged under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38 (1) A and 22-C of UAPA and directed to be relea was in custody since May 06, 2020 and 40 out of 100 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Apex Court observed that continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice as there was no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. However, along with the conditions that may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act) following two conditions were imposed as the conditions for grant of (i) The petitioner shall report to the nearest police station once every week and (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the trial Judge on every date of the trial without fail, unless his presence is dispensed with by the trial Court, and shall cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial.” In a recent case in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 dated February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court set order passed by the High Court, rejecting the bail of the appellant. As per the prosecution’s case, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute e also means that once a case is made out for grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh and , vide an order dated August 30, 2024, the petitioner was charged under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38 (1) (2), C of UAPA and directed to be released on bail as he was in custody since May 06, 2020 and 40 out of 100 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Apex Court observed that continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice as there clusion of the trial. However, along with the conditions that may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act) following two conditions were imposed as the conditions for grant of The petitioner shall report to the nearest police The petitioner shall remain present before the trial Judge on every date of the trial without fail, unless his presence is dispensed with by the trial Court, and shall cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial.” Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322, by a judgment dated February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court set-aside the impugned rejecting the bail of the appellant. As per , the appellant was travelling in a vehicle carrying SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) articles which could be ordinarily related search being conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in conscious possession of the following articl “xxx 4. were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious possession of the appellant herein: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Xxx” 23. In that case After filing of the charge 42 witnesses and intended to examine as many as 100 witnesses. It was observed that even after the passing of five years of the appellan judicial custody, learned counsel appearing for the State had regarding time that would be consumed to complete the recording of oral evidence. The Supreme Court recorded that in the aforesaid circumstances, it was left with no other opt released on bail despite the seriousness of the crime alleged. Furthermore, it was of the view that the Public Prosecutor who was in charge of the trial, had to decide which of the examined and who served if several witnesses were examined for establishing the same fact. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter: 2022 (O&M) which could be ordinarily related to N search being conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in conscious possession of the following articles: “xxx 4. The search was undertaken and the following articles were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious possession of the appellant herein: (i) 95 pair of shoes (ii) Green black printed cloth (iii) Two bundles of electric wire each of 100 (iv) LED lens and (v) Walki talki and other articles. Xxx” In that case, the appellant was arrested on March 24, 2020. After filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecution was only able to examine 42 witnesses and intended to examine as many as 100 witnesses. It was observed that even after the passing of five years of the appellan judicial custody, learned counsel appearing for the State had regarding time that would be consumed to complete the recording of oral evidence. The Supreme Court recorded that in the aforesaid circumstances, it was left with no other option but to get the appellant released on bail despite the seriousness of the crime alleged. Furthermore, it was of the view that the Public Prosecutor who was in of the trial, had to decide which of the examined and who were to be dropped as no useful purpose would be served if several witnesses were examined for establishing the same fact. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter: to Naxalite activities. Upon search being conducted, it was alleged that the appellant was in es: The search was undertaken and the following articles were recovered from the car alleged to be in conscious possession of the appellant herein:- electric wire each of 100 metere Walki talki and other articles. he appellant was arrested on March 24, 2020. sheet, the prosecution was only able to examine 42 witnesses and intended to examine as many as 100 witnesses. It was observed that even after the passing of five years of the appellant being in judicial custody, learned counsel appearing for the State had no idea regarding time that would be consumed to complete the recording of oral evidence. The Supreme Court recorded that in the aforesaid ion but to get the appellant released on bail despite the seriousness of the crime alleged. Furthermore, it was of the view that the Public Prosecutor who was in- of the trial, had to decide which of the witnesses were to be be dropped as no useful purpose would be served if several witnesses were examined for establishing the same fact. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter: SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) “xxx 10. clear that ho has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Xxx 12. of trial. It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion insofar as examination of the witness is concerned. Xxx 14. would also assume importance. The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to exam depose the very same thing that any other witness might have guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and proper to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infring on accused persons guilty financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pre accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps eve and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources. 15. extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently. Xxx” 24. In the present case, even if one assumes that the co indulging in terrorist acts or were participating in acts preparatory to 2022 (O&M) “xxx 10. However, many times we have made ourselves very clear that howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Xxx 12. The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion insofar as examination of the witness is concerned. Xxx 14. In this regard, the role of the Special Judge (NIA) would also assume importance. The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier. We may sound as if laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and proper perspective. If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons- who remain innocent until proven guilty- can also be significant. Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pre-trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources. 15. We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently. Xxx” In the present case, even if one assumes that the co in terrorist acts or were participating in acts preparatory to However, many times we have made ourselves very wsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion insofar as examination of the witness In this regard, the role of the Special Judge (NIA) would also assume importance. The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to ine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might deposed earlier. We may sound as if laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay perspective. If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of ed. The stress of long trials who remain innocent until proven can also be significant. Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job for accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being n ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources. We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently. In the present case, even if one assumes that the co-accused were in terrorist acts or were participating in acts preparatory to SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) the commission of terrorist acts, relevant material the accused to advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or conspiring to commit any terrorist ac of bail after a long period of incarceration. 25. It is pertinent to note that witnesses remain 22.02.2021. Learned estimate of the Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but to release the appellant on bail. 26. In view of the appellant is in custody for 0 of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated October 31, 2022 released on regular b furnishing of requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned: (i) He shall furnish bond of ₹10 lakh each; (ii) He shall surrender his passp holding the same and is still with (iii) He shall appear before date (iv) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer when summoned; v) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or who is cited as witness; 2022 (O&M) the commission of terrorist acts, relevant material the accused to advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or conspiring to commit any terrorist act had to be brought on record to justify rejection of bail after a long period of incarceration. It is pertinent to note that in the present case remain to be examined despite the charge Learned State counsel is also unable to give a estimate of the time that may be required for completion of Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but to release the appellant on bail. In view of the aforesaid discussion appellant is in custody for 05 years, 02 months and of the trial is not in sight, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated October 31, 2022 is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to following conditions besides furnishing of requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned:- (i) He shall furnish bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties of 10 lakh each; (ii) He shall surrender his passport in the Trial Court, if he is holding the same and is still with hi (iii) He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date, unless exempted by the Court; (iv) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer when summoned; v) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or who is cited as witness; the commission of terrorist acts, relevant material at this stage connecting the accused to advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or conspiring to t had to be brought on record to justify rejection in the present case all the 36 to be examined despite the charge-sheet being filed on State counsel is also unable to give any reasonable required for completion of the trial. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but to release the aforesaid discussion, especially when the months and 30 days 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 ail subject to following conditions besides furnishing of requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial ₹10 lakh with two sureties of ort in the Trial Court, if he is him; Trial Court on each and every Court; (iv) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and v) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or who is cited as witness; SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) vi) He shall not involve in any criminal activity and if during the pendency of trial, he is fou any offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency would be free to approach this this order and cancellation of his bail; vii) He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third party viii) He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of shall not claim re ix) At the time of release of the appellant SHO shall be informed. He shall appear before the SHO on every alternate Monday till the conclusion of the trial. 27. In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Tria 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, prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial Court. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2022 (O&M) vi) 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 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 his absence, Trial Court may proceed with shall not claim re-examination of any witness. ix) At the time of release of the appellant SHO shall 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 Tria 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 bail of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No vi) He shall not involve in any criminal activity and if during nd 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 right over his immovable property; viii) He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case absence, Trial Court may proceed with the trial and he examination of any witness. ix) At the time of release of the appellant, the concerned SHO shall 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 whether directly or indirectly, then also the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.03 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document