JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.

The appellant-Jagwinder Singh @ Jagga, has challenged the order dated June 06, 2024, passed by Special Judge, NIA, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby his bail application in FIR No.136 of August 14, 2020 registered under Section 120-B read with Sections 109, 124-A, 153-B, 201, 204, 212 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Sections 10,13 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UAPA') and Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POINTH Act') at Police Station City Moga, has been dismissed.

PROSECUTION'S CASE

2. On August 14, 2020, at about 8:00 am, two people entered the administrative complex of the Deputy Commissioner's office, Moga. They 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 went to the pole on which Indian National flag was fixed within the office complex of D.C office, Moga and cut its rope due to which the flag fell on the ground.

3. FIR No.136 dated 14.08.2020 under Sections 109, 115, 121, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 212 IPC, Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the UAPA and Section 2 of POINTH Act, Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (added subsequently), was registered at Police Station City, Moga.

4. Upon investigation, it transpired that the said offence was committed at the behest of one Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, who is a declared terrorist by the Government of India and a member of an unlawful association/banned organisation by the name of 'SIKHS FOR JUSTICE'(for short, 'SFJ'). The appellant 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 Inderjit Singh (A-1) to join 'SFJ'.

5. Inderjit Singh (A-1) (appellant's cousin) was one of the two miscreants who went on the top floor of D.C's office and hoisted the flag on which the word 'KHALISTAN' was written and cut the rope of Indian National flag tied to a flag post on the ground floor. The appellant sheltered them and took them to Anandpur Sahib in his Fortuner car. Furthermore, upon return from Anandpur Sahib, the appellant also allowed them to stay in his house from 16.08.2020 to 17.08.2020.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities under UAPA but there was no recovery from the appellant apart from a mobile phone and no incriminating material was produced against him which could connect the appellant to any offence, more so, to any offence under UAPA. Apart from the disclosure statement of Inderjit Singh (A-1) who is a coaccused in the present case, there is no evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the appellant (A-4) to the commission of any crime. Furthermore, only 20 out of 149 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution despite passage of more than 05 years of the appellant being in custody and the prosecution is unnecessarily dragging the conclusion of the trial.

7. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for NIA submits