2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ
Sukhdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-616-2026

Constitutional courts may grant bail despite statutory embargoes under special penal laws if pre-trial incarceration is prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, as Article 21 rights override restrictive bail provisions in such instances.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 437, 439, 440, 441, 445 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 485, 488, 490 - Constitution of India - Article 19, 21 - Bail - Prolonged pre-trial incarceration - Constitutional courts possess inherent power to grant bail despite statutory restrictions under special statutes if the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed - The rigidity of statutory embargoes must yield to the imperatives of individual liberty and the unlikelihood of a trial concluding within a reasonable time. (Paras 16, 17, 21, 26)

(B) Bail Conditions - Proportionality - Conditions imposed must be reasonable and have a nexus to the goal of ensuring the accused's presence at trial - Excessive conditions that act as a de facto denial of bail are unsustainable - Courts should accept alternatives to traditional sureties, including cash deposits, to prevent the detention of impoverished individuals and to mitigate the exploitation by professional surety entities. (Paras 27, 28, 36, 39, 44, 48)

(C) Identification of Sureties - Verification process - Reliance on biometric identification systems should replace manual verification by local administrative officials to streamline the bail process and remove the scope for illicit service charges. (Paras 42, 43)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with various offences under the special anti-terror legislation after allegedly conspiring to distribute materials propagating a separatist movement and illegal referendum. Despite being in pre-trial custody for over four years with no criminal antecedents, the trial court rejected the application for regular bail. The appellant approached the High Court, asserting the right to liberty due to the significant delay in trial and lack of direct evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the evidence against the appellant was largely based on disclosures of co-accused and indirect material, with no recovery of incriminating items directly from the appellant. Considering the duration of custody and the constitutional protections under Article 21, the court found it appropriate to exercise discretion to grant bail.

Issues: Whether the appellate court could grant bail despite the statutory embargo under the special anti-terror legislation, and whether the conditions imposed for bail must be proportionate and non-punitive.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued incarceration of an undertrial without the prospect of an early conclusion to the trial violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Statutory restrictions on bail do not completely oust the power of constitutional courts to grant relief when fundamental rights are infringed, particularly when the accused has suffered significant pre-trial detention. Further, bail conditions must not be so onerous as to become an antithesis to liberty.

Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the appellant is directed to be released on bail.