JUDGMENT :

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby his bail application in FIR No.187 dated 16.08.2021, registered under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 13, 16, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for short,' UAPA'], at Police Station Gharinda, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is alleged that the appellant along with co-accused Amritpal Singh was indulged in anti-national activities, but no recovery has been effected from him besides mobile phone and Rs.510/-. The appellant is 26 years old and is not involved in any other criminal case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti Sen versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 498, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC Online 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra, another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024.

4. Learned State counsel while relying upon reply submits that the appellant was arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused Gurpreet Singh Khalsa who was an acting member of Babbar Khalsa International, which is a banned organization. A huge recovery of arms and ammunition was effected at the instance of co-accused Amritpal Singh. Large number of photographs of the appellant with co-accused Amritpal Singh were also recovered. The appellant has been in custody for 3 years, 01 month and 06 days. He further submits that charges are framed but none of 23 witnesses have been examined so far.

5. Heard.

6. The allegations against the appellant are that he was indulged in anti national activities. He was arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused, however, no recovery of arms and ammunition has been effected from the appellant which has also been mentioned in the reply filed by the State. The only recovery which has been effected from the appellant is mobile phone and Rs.510/-. The appellant is 26 years old. The custody certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar indicates that appellant has been in custody for 03 years, 01 months and 06 days, charges have been framed on 31.07.2024, but none of 23 witnesses have been examined so far.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. 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 been in custody for more than 03 years. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides right to speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has also been held that the embargo under Section 43-D of UAPA would not negate th