End Of Trial Is Not In Sight: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Radicalizing Sikh Youths To Join SFJ

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man who was accused of radicalizing and motivating Sikh youths to join the unlawful association/banned organization namely “Sikhs for Justice” (SFJ).

An Appeal was filed before the Court, challenging the Order of the Special Judge by which the Bail Application of the accused was dismissed.

A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji observed, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, especially when the appellant is in custody for more than five years and the end of the trial is not in sight, considering only 20 out of 149 prosecution 149 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated June 06, 2024 is set aside.”

The Bench said that no explanation has been provided by the prosecution as to why despite of lodging of FIR more than five years back, the trial is proceeding at such a slow pace.

Advocate Bhanu Pratap Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, in August 2020, two persons entered the administrative complex of the Deputy Commissioner’s office, Moga. They allegedly went to the top floor of the office building and hoisted one saffron/yellowish colour flag on which the word ‘KHALISTAN’ was written, on an iron pole that was already fixed there. Upon returning to the ground floor, they allegedly went to the pole on which Indian National flag was fixed within the office complex of DC office and cut its rope due to which the flag fell on the ground. Resultantly, an FIR under Sections 109, 115, 121, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Sections 10, 11, and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971 (POINTH Act); and Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

Upon investigation, it was transpired that the said offence was committed at the behest of one Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, who is a declared terrorist by the Indian Government and a member of SFJ. It was alleged that the Appellant-accused used to watch SFJ channel, posted his comments favouring SFJ on social media, and also took part in radicalizing and motivating Sikh youths including his cousin to join SFJ. It was further alleged that his cousin was one of the two miscreants who hoisted flag on the top floor of DC’s office. Allegedly, the Appellant sheltered them and took them to Anandpur Sahib in his car and thereafter, allowed them to stay in his house.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “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 proport deprival of liberty must be proportionate to the facts of the case and also follow a just and fair procedure. A balance must be made between the prosecution’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution.”

The Court reiterated that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India and that 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.

“A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way”, it elucidated.

The Court added that 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 present case, no worthwhile material to show meeting of minds/criminal conspiracy has been brought on record by the prosecution, at this stage. … It is pertinent to note that after more than 05 years, only 20 out of 149 prosecution witnesses have been examined despite the charge-sheet being filed in September, 2020”, it further observed.

The Court also said that the SPP has not been able to give any reasonable estimate of the time that may be required for completion of the trial and hence, it is left with no other option but to release the accused on bail.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Order, and granted bail to the accused subject to following certain conditions.

Cause Title- Jagwinder Singh @ Jagga v. National Investigating Agency (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC-149376-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment