State unable to say when trial will end: P&H High Court grants bail to UAPA accused after 5 years in jail

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to a man who had spent 5 years in jail following his arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), after noting the State was unable to give an estimate of when the criminal trial against him was likely to conclude [Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu v State of Punjab].

The accused had been booked under the UAPA following the alleged recovery of a pistol and drug money of ₹50,000 from his possession.

The Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji noted that the accused, Sukhjinder Singh, has spent over 5 years and 2 months in jail and that all the 36 witnesses are yet to be examined during the trial despite the chargesheet having been filed in 2021.

The Court proceeded to grant him bail.

“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,” the Court said.

The Court further said that it wanted to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself. 

"The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself ... 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 entitle the accused under UAPA to the 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," it observed.

The State had earlier argued that the accused was involved in anti-national activities. It was submitted that he was arrested during a raid conducted at the house of a co-accused on the basis of secret information that the accused were in possession of imported arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the accused were involved in dacoity, extortion and smuggling of drugs.

From the State’s reply, the Court noted that the accused is alleged to have been involved in a car snatching incident, but no specific role was attributed to him. Further, it found no incriminating evidence to show his involvement with any offence under the UAPA.

The Court added that even if one assumes that all the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts, some relevant material connecting the accused to such terrorist acts had to be brought on record to justify the rejection of his bail plea after a long period of incarceration.

Concluding that the end of the trial in the present case is not in sight, the Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused on a bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties of ₹10 lakh each.

Advocates Saurav Bhatia and Kuljinder Billing represented the accused.

Senior Deputy Advocate General Sartej Singh Gill represented the State of Punjab.

[Read Order]