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

Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab.

***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar whereby his bail application in FIR No.11 dated 19.07.2023, registered under Sections 153, 153-A, 120-B IPC, Sections 25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 17, 18 & 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA’), at Police Station SSOC, District S.A.S. Nagar, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR and has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co- accused Ashish @ Gopi. The allegations against the appellant are that he had sent Rs.68,000/- to one Amninder Singh who is residing abroad but there is nothing to indicate that Amninder Singh is involved in any criminal activity. No recovery of any fire arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from the appellant. The appellant is not involved in any other criminal case. He 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 12 days. He submits that the appellant had transferred a sum of Rs.68,000/- to one Amninder Singh who gave the same to the men of co-accused namely Ashish @ Gopi who along with other unknown persons conspired together and had acquired illegal ammunition. He further submits that the 04 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined and cross-examination of 03 of them is yet to take place. 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 allegations against the appellant are that he is stated to have sent a sum of Rs.68,000/- to co-accused namely Amninder Singh. The appellant was not named in the FIR. No recovery of either any arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him.

6. 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 Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes a 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 incarc