Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK SIBAL, LAPITA BANERJI
Javed – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
The appellant-Javed, has challenged the order dated September 20, 2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, exercising the power of Special Court, whereby his bail application in FIR No.02 of 05.02.2020 registered under Section 120 -B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”), Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 10 ,13,18,19,20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA ”), at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, District SAS Nagar, Mohali has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities under UAPA but except for alleged recovery of one 7.65 mm pistol, five 7.65 live cartridges along with one .315 bore pistol, two .315 live cartridges and one Samsung mobile phone from his wife-Tamanna, nothing else was recovered from him. No incriminating material/evidence was recovered from the appellant which could connect or link him to any offence under . Apart from the purported statements of chance witnesses-Kulwinder Singh @ Kala, Amrik Singh and Nishant Sharma, there
Prolonged pre-trial detention mandates consideration for bail under Article 21, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence linking the accused to criminal conspiracy under the UAPA.
The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without significant evidence warrants bail under Article 21, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial. Serious allegations alone do not justify denial....
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
Long custody without trial can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged custody without trial can violate the right to speedy trial, justifying bail under UAPA despite serious allegations.
Long custody can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial as per Article 21.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
