2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ
Amarjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-214-2026

In cases under stringent special statutes, bail may be granted if the evidence is merely accusatory without physical recovery and continued pre-trial incarceration infringes upon the constitutional right to liberty, provided the accused adheres to strict conditions preventing flight, evidence tampering, or re-offending.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Bail - Grant of bail under special statutes - The court must conduct a twin-prong test: firstly, whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true; and secondly, if the accused satisfies the tripod test relating to flight risk, witness tampering, and evidence destruction - The degree of satisfaction for prima facie truth is lighter than that required for discharge, yet remains restrictive compared to ordinary penal laws. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)

(B) Criminal Law - Bail Jurisprudence - Pre-trial detention - Right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution remains sacrosanct - Continued incarceration without significant trial progress where evidence is based solely on interrogation of co-accused without direct recovery justifies the grant of bail. (Paras 12, 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought regular bail after being denied by the lower court in a case involving charges of conspiracy and terrorism-related offences. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the disclosure statements and interrogation of co-accused persons. No incriminating material or weapons were recovered directly from the appellant.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the evidence against the appellant was derived exclusively from the interrogation of others. Given the lack of substantive recovery and the length of pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the appellant’s willingness to submit to stringent conditions, the court found further detention unnecessary.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail despite the stringent provisions of the governing special statute, given the nature of the evidence and the duration of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the investigative material against an accused is tenuous, relies solely on co-accused disclosures, and lacks physical recovery, the court is not precluded from granting bail, provided the individual satisfies the personal liberty requirements of the Constitution and the court imposes restrictive conditions to safeguard national interest and trial integrity.

Result: Appeal allowed; Bail granted subject to stringent conditions.