IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: AUGUST 21, 2025 DATE OF DECISION:SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. Kuljinder Billing, Advocate, For the appellant.

Mr. Sartej Singh Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The appellant has challenged the order dated October 31, 2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kapurthala, exercising the power of Special Court, whereby his bail application in FIR No.140 of 07.05.2020 registered under Sections 384, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 489 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Sections 25,54,59 of the Arms Act, Sections 13/18/19 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), later on added Sections 120-B, 482, 121, 121-A, 122 of IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, 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 the UAPA, but except for recovery of one pistol of .32 bore with

15 live cartridges and Rs.50,000/- in cash, no other incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from him. He further submits that no case has been made out against the appellant by the prosecution which could even suggest that the accused has committed any offence under the UAPA Act and that five other co-accused, including the main accused namely, Baljinder Singh @ Billa appellant in CRA-D-686-2022, have been granted the benefit of interim bail since July/August 2022.

3. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Bhatia also places reliance upon State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203, to submit that even if a .32 bore pistol along with Rs.50,000/- cash was recovered from the appellant, still nothing has been brought on record to establish criminal conspiracy between the present appellant and other co-accused. The relevant extract of the titled case is reproduced hereinafter:

“xxx

12. We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of interference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the conspirators. This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more person to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal