IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 18.02.2026 HARVINDER SINGH @ PRINCE ... 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-49659-2024 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 224 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 224 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE The appellant has challenged the order dated 02.04.2024 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 allegations against the appellant was that he along with co-accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree. The appellant was arraigned as an accused on the disclosure statement of the co-accused namely Prem Singh in FIR No.148 dated 15.07.2022, P.S. Kotwali, Patiala. Besides the involvement of the appellant in the aforenoted FIR, 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 03 years and 02 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 03 years, 02 months and 22 days. He submits that the appellant was in constant touch with Gurpatwant Singh Pannu through Whatsapp in order to spread ‘Khalistan Movement’. He further submits that the appellant had himself made the banner which was affixed on the tree. 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 the appellant along with co-accused namely Prem Singh affixed an objectionable banner on a tree. No recovery of either in the form of fire 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 li