2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 86159

Anoop Chitkara, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ
Sukhdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-616-2026

Constitutional courts may grant bail in cases under stringent special statutes if the accused has undergone prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, as such prolonged detention infringes upon the fundamental right to liberty and a speedy trial.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Personal liberty and right to speedy trial - Constitutional Courts possess inherent power to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions if there is a violation of fundamental rights regarding prolonged pre-trial incarceration and unlikelihood of trial completion. (Paras 4, 5, 16, 17)

(B) Bail - Conditions - Bail bond and surety must be proportional and not so onerous as to function as a refusal of bail - Practice of requiring local verification of sureties by local officials through physical verification is discouraged where digital identity verification is available. (Paras 28, 38, 43, 44)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought regular bail against the rejection order passed by the trial court in a case involving charges of anti-national activities and conspiracy. The appellant had been in custody for over four years and seven months with no previous criminal antecedents. The prosecution relied on co-accused disclosure statements and recovery of propaganda material, though nothing incriminating was recovered directly from the appellant.

Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the appellant's prolonged pre-trial detention during which the trial showed no sign of completion violated fundamental rights. The evidence against the appellant was largely based on confessions of co-accused and indirect material, failing to meet the threshold for continued incarceration under the relevant Act's rigorous standards.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the stringent provisions of the governing special statute, and whether the trial court's order denying bail was justified in view of the duration of custody and the nature of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional Courts must balance statutory bail restrictions with the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. Prolonged incarceration without the immediate prospect of trial completion renders the statutory bar under special legislation secondary to the constitutional guarantee of liberty.

Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted.