State Unable To Give Reasonable Estimate Of Time For Completion Of Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail In 2020 UAPA Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) in the year 2020.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed against the Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) by which the Bail Application was dismissed.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji observed, “It is pertinent to note that in the present case all the 36 witnesses remain to be examined despite the charge-sheet being filed on 22.02.2021. Learned State counsel is also unable to give any reasonable estimate of the time that may be required for completion of the trial. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but to release the appellant on bail.”

Advocate Saurav Bhatia represented the Appellant/Accused while Senior DAG Sartej Singh Gill represented the Respondent/State.

Case Background

The accused-Appellant’s Bail Application was dismissed in an FIR registered under Sections 384, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, and 489 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 13, 18, and 19 of the UAPA. The counsel for the accused submitted 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 .32 bore with 15 live cartridges and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, no other incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from him.

It was further submitted that no case was made out against the accused by the prosecution which could even suggest that the accused has committed any offence under the UAPA and that 5 other co-accused including the main accused have been granted the benefit of interim bail since July/August 2022.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “In the present case, even if one assumes that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts 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.”

The Court noted that the Appellant is in custody for 05 years, 02 months and 30 days and the end of the trial is not in sight. It, therefore, ordered that the Appellant shall be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bail bonds subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Court further clarified that in the event there is a breach of any of the bail 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 the High 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 Court”, it also added.

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

Cause Title- Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:113259-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Saurav Bhatia and Kuljinder Billing.

Respondent: Senior DAG Sartej Singh Gill

Click here to read/download the Judgment