Bail To UAPA Accused

 

 

IN THE order passed on September 2, 2025, in the case – Sukhjinder Singh alias Bittu v. State of Punjab, Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapta Banerji of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, have granted bail to the UAPA appellant –accused, mainly due to the State Government’s inability to make a statement in the Court by what time the Government expects the trial to conclude.

 

The appellant, who is in jail since last more than five years, has challenged the order of October 31, 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, exercising the powers of the Special Court, whereby his application for bail in FIR of May 7, 2020 for the offence under sections 384, 465, 467,468, 471, 473,489 of IPC, sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and sections 13, 18,19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967- the UAPA, Later on, sections 120-B, 482, 121, 121-A, 122 of IPC registered at the Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi in Kapurthala District. Sessions Court had dismissed his application. It was submitted by the appellant’s counsel that although it has been alleged that the accused was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but except for recovery of one pistol of 12 bore with 15 live cartridges and Rs 50,000/- in cash, no other incriminating material was recovered from him. The counsel pointed out that five other co-accused including the main accused Baljinder Singh alias Billa have been granted interim bail, giving benefit of doubt, since July-August, 2022. In a recent decision in the case – Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh-2025 SCC OnLine SCC 322 on February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court has set aside the impugned order passed by the HC rejecting the bail of the applicant.

 

As per the prosecution case, the appellant was travelling in a vehicle carrying articles which can be ordinarily related to Naxalite activities. Upon search being conducted it was alleged that the appellant was in constant possession of the 95 pair of shoes, Green black printed clothes, Two bundle of electric wire each one 100 meters long, LED lens and walki-talki and other articles. In that case the appellant was arrested on May 24, 2020. After filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecution was able to examine only 42 witnesses and intended to examine as many as 100 witnesses. It was observed that even after passing of five years of the appellant being in judicial custody, the counsel of the State Government had no idea regarding time that would be consumed to complete the recording of oral evidence. The Supreme Court recorded that in the 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 the in-charge of the trial, had to decide which of the witnesses were to be examined and who were to be dropped as no useful purpose would served if several witnesses were examined to establish the same fact. In the present case, even if one assumes that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist attacks or were participating in acts preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, relevant material at this stage connecting 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. In the present case, all the 36 witnesses remain to be examined despite the chargesheet being filed on February 22, 2021. State counsel was also unable to give any reasonable estimate of the time that maybe required for completion of the trial. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option, but to release the appellant on bail, especially, when the appellant is in custody since five years, two months and 30 days and end of the trial is not in sight.

 

The HC has allowed the appeal setting aside the impugned order of October 31, 2022 and ordered release of the appellant on regular bail subject to conditions stipulated in this order, besides furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court / Duty Magistrate concerned. The High Court has stipulated conditions for bail as under: The appellant has been directed to furnish bond of Rs ten Lakh with two sureties of Rs ten Lakhs each, surrender the passport in trial court, to attend every date in trial court unless exempted by the court, to remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when called and not to try to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The HC has warned the appellant not to involve in 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 the HC for recalling this order and cancellation of order of bail, not to sell or transfer or in any other manner create third party right over his immovable property and he will also have to submit an undertaking to the effect that in case of his absence, trial court may proceed with the trial and he shall not claim re-examination of any witness.

 

At time of release of the applicant, the concerned SHO shall be informed. He shall appear before the SHO on every alternate Monday till the conclusion of the trial. In a note of caution, the High Court has that made it clear that in the event of breach of any of the stipulated conditions or of the conditions to be imposed by the trial court, independently, it will be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail of the defaulting appellant without any further reference to the Court. Similarly, if the appellant seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or indirectly, then the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail of the concerned appellant before the Trial Court.