IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 DATE OF DECISION:SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 Ashish Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Mani Makkar, Advocate with Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate, For the petitioners.

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The appellant, namely Ashish Kumar, has challenged the order dated January 08, 2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, 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 10,13,18,20 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 accused-appellant was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but except for alleged recovery of one .30 bore pistol along with 04 live cartridges, no other incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from him which could connect or link him to any offence under the UAPA. Apart from the purported statements of chance witnesses- Kulwinder Singh @ Kala, Amrik Singh and Nishant Sharma, there was no evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the appellant to commission of any crime, more so to an offence under the UAPA. Furthermore, he submits that only 01 out of 40 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far despite passage of more than 05 years of incarceration of the appellant.

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. He also places reliance upon State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203, to submit that even if a .30 bore pistol along with 05 live cartridges was recovered from the appellant, still nothing has been brought on record to establish criminal conspiracy between the present appellant and the 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 o