2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ
Charanjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-638-2025

Statutory restrictions on bail under anti-terror legislation do not preclude constitutional courts from granting relief when an accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed by excessive pre-trial incarceration and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 452, 120B, 212, 216, 148, 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25/54/59 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 17, 18, 18B, 19, 20, 25 - Bail under special statutes - The court emphasized that while statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA exist, they do not oust the constitutional power to grant bail when there is a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The rigor of such provisions melts down where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the sentence. (Paras 15, 27, 32)

(B) Bail jurisprudence - Pre-trial incarceration - Bail cannot be withheld as a punitive measure. The court must balance the seriousness of the offence with the period of custody already suffered and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The liberty of an accused is a constitutional imperative that mandates speedy trial; indefinite detention without trial is inconsistent with Article 21. (Paras 15, 24, 27)

(C) Bail conditions - Conditions imposed for bail must be proportionate to their purpose and possess a nexus to the trial process. Such conditions should not result in the deprivation of fundamental rights or liberties. (Para 41)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought regular bail after the dismissal of his application by the lower court regarding a case involving murder, criminal conspiracy, and offences under the anti-terror legislation. The appellant had been in custody for over three years, and the investigation revealed allegations that he provided shelter to the primary accused, who were involved in gang-related activities. The appellant denied these allegations and offered to abide by any stringent conditions set by the court.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the appellant was not identified as the primary perpetrator of the murder, but rather for providing shelter. Considering the excessive period of pre-trial custody and the unlikelihood of trial completion in the near future, the court concluded that further incarceration was not required, provided the appellant complied with specific stringent conditions.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail despite the gravity of the offences and the restrictions under the special anti-terror legislation, balancing the right to a speedy trial against statutory bars.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that statutory restrictions on bail do not override the constitutional duty to ensure speedy trials. Given the prolonged pre-trial detention and that the evidentiary threshold for conspiracy was not sufficient to justify continued incarceration against the appellant's liberty, the court granted bail subject to strict monitoring conditions and prohibitions on re-offending.

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant granted bail subject to specified conditions.