IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 16.10.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 Manjeet Singh ….Appellant versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Pardeep Chahar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. Through the instant appeal the appellant challenges the order dated April 04, 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, (for short – the Trial Court), declining regular bail to the appellant in FIR No.414 dated 20.06.2022 under Sections 10, 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short – the UAPA), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short – the PDPP Act) and Sections 120-B/ 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short – the FIR in question).

THE FACTS

2. On 20.06.2022, Inspector Sandip Singh, who was posted as Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Karnal received information that certain objectionable slogans have been painted on the front walls of Dayal Singh College and DAV School in Karnal. On receipt of such information he reached the gate of Dayal Singh College and found pro Khalistan slogans painted on its front wall in Punjabi and English. Thereafter, he reached DAV School and found similar slogans painted on the wall of the school. After taking photographs, he registered the FIR in question.

3. During the course of investigation, on 03.07.2022, the appellant was arrested and on being interrogated, through his alleged disclosure statement, he allegedly admitted to have written pro Khalistan slogans on the walls of Dayal Singh College and DAV School in Karnal. Further investigation resulted in the alleged recovery of a motorcycle, one bag and one mobile phone from the appellant’s possession.

Thereafter, co-accused Resham Singh was arrested on 22.07.2022.

4. The clothes, mobile phone of the appellant and his co- accused were then subjected to forensic examination and after completion of investigation the State filed before the Trial Court its final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the appellant was charged and presently faces trial under Sections of the IPC, UAPA and PDPP Act, under which the FIR in question had been registered.

5. Till date, only 01 out of the 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined in the appellant’s trial and in the meanwhile, the appellant has undergone actual custody of nearly 03 years and 04 months.

THE SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court erred in law and in fact by denying bail to the appellant; the appellant is sought to be prosecuted primarily on the basis of his disclosure statement made by him in police custody which in the absence of any corroborative evidence has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law; the alleged recovery from the appellant of a motorcycle, a bag and a mobile phone does not connect the appellant with the crime he is being prosecuted for; there is also no forensic evidence connecting the appellant with the crime for which he is facing trial; no incriminating material has been recovered from the appellant; the investigation against the appellant is complete and therefore, he is no longer required by the prosecution for such purpose; through order dated 03.04.2024 passed in CRA-D-378-2023-Resham vs. State of Haryana similarly placed co- accused, namely, Resham who had undergone only 01 year and 09 months of custody has already been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and that since till date only 01 out of 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined in the appellant’s trial the same will take a long time to conclude.

7. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2024) 6 SCC 591, Vernon v