Back
Grants Bail to British National Jagtar Johal After 8 Years in Custody
In a significant decision, the on Friday granted bail to British national Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been in custody for over eight years in seven cases involving murder charges and the . A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed his appeals, setting aside the trial court's orders denying bail.
The Allegations and Procedural Background
Johal, a Scottish Sikh, was arrested in and has since been facing multiple cases investigated by the . The charges stem from a series of targeted killings in Punjab between and , allegedly linked to the . The prosecution accused Johal of being an active member of the KLF and part of a transnational conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
Despite directions from the to expedite the trial, only 40 witnesses had been examined out of a total of 163, with around 123 witnesses still to be heard. Johal had previously been acquitted in one similar UAPA case by a , a decision that the NIA did not challenge.
Arguments on Bail: Liberty vs. Statutory Restrictions
Johal’s counsel argued that the prolonged incarceration—over eight years—violated his to a under . Citing precedents like , , and , counsel contended that the restrictions under of the UAPA should not trump the of . They also highlighted that Johal had been granted bail by the in a related case, a decision upheld by the .
The Additional Solicitor General representing the NIA opposed bail, arguing that Johal, being a foreign national, posed a . He also submitted that the gravity of the offences—terrorism and separatism—and allegations of witness intimidation warranted continued detention. The prosecution maintained that the charges framed against Johal established a case, triggering the on bail under the UAPA.
Court’s Analysis: Balancing Article 21 and
The court undertook a detailed analysis of the interplay between constitutional rights and . It observed that while the UAPA imposes stringent conditions, these “” where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time and the accused has already served a substantial part of the possible sentence.
The bench noted that despite orders to expedite the trial, progress remained slow, with no immediate end in sight. The court also gave significant weight to Johal’s acquittal in a similar case, stating that while not binding, it had “” for the purpose of bail.
On the issue of , the court held that the appellant’s foreign nationality alone could not justify continued incarceration. “As regards the submission of the learned ASG that the appellant, being a foreign national, is a , we are of the opinion that the liberty of the appellant cannot be curtailed only on this ground. Instead, we shall impose conditions that should ensure that he does not become a ,” the judgment stated.
Key Observations
The court made several pivotal observations that shaped its decision:
- “The presence of statutory restrictions like does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of .”
- “The rigours of such provisions will where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.”
- On the acquittal: “Therefore, at least for enlarging the appellant on bail, this order shall have a .”
The court rejected the NIA’s claim that Johal was behind witness threats, noting that no material had been produced to substantiate that allegation.
The Decision and Its Conditions
The bench set aside the impugned orders of the trial court and directed Johal’s release on bail, subject to stringent conditions. He must execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties, surrender his passport, use only one mobile number, and report to the investigating officer every fortnight. He is also barred from making public statements about the case, tampering with evidence, or contacting witnesses. Any violation would allow the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
The judgment reaffirms that prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of a can outweigh , even in serious UAPA cases. It also underscores that being a foreign national is not an automatic disqualification for bail, provided adequate safeguards are imposed.
The order has been hailed by Johal’s family and UK-based activists, who have campaigned for his release under the #FreeJaggiNow banner. However, the court made it clear that Johal cannot leave India without permission, and his freedom remains conditional on strict compliance with the bail terms.
