IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 18.02.2026 PREM SINGH ... Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

CRM-45785-2024 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal.

Heard.

The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. It would be in the interest of justice if the delay is condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on merits.

Consequently, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE The appellant has challenged the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby his bail application in FIR No.398 dated 28.07.2022, registered under Sections 153-A, 120-B IPC, Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’), at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Distrcit Ambala, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR. The appellant was arraigned as an accused after he had been arrested in an FIR No.148 dated 15.07.2022, registered under Sections 153-A, 153- B, 120-B IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, Sections 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’ only) and Section 18 of Unlawful Activities Amendment Orders Act, at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. It is alleged that a banner with objectionable words had been affixed at a tree in Ambala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the aforenoted FIRs, he is not involved in any other criminal case. He, however, submits that no recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from the appellant. The appellant is in custody for over 02 years and 06 months. In support of his submissions, he 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 SCCOnline 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 SCCOnline 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.

3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. He submits that the appellant had received Rs.25,000/- through Western Union office sent by Gurjot Singh from America. He conspired with co-accused Harvinder Singh @ Prince in order to spread the ‘Khalistan Movement’. He, upon instructions from ASI Gurwinder Singh, submits that 07 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He also submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.

4. Heard.

5. The appellant was not named in the FIR. It is alleged that he had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- for putting up an objectionable banner. He had been arraigned as an accused after his arrest in another FIR registered in District Patiala, Punjab. No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him and he has undergone an actual custody of over

02 years and 06 months

6. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fun