Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amandeep Kumar @ Ammu vs State Of Punjab on 19 November, 2025

Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal

Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal

CRA-D-1529-2024                                                        -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


148                                            CRA-D-1529-2024
                                               Date of decision : 19.11.2025

Amandeep Kumar @ Annu                                ... Appellant
                               Versus

State of Punjab
                                                     .. Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:-   Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate and
            Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

            Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                  ***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereby his bail

application in FIR No.241 dated 08.11.2021, registered under Sections 3, 4, 5 of

Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 307, 212, 427, 120-B IPC; Sections 13,

16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short

'UAPA') and Sections 25, 25(6), 25(7), 25(8)-54-59 of the Arms Act at Police

Station City Nawanshahr, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who is 29

years of age, was not named in the FIR and had been arraigned as an accused on

the allegation that he had given shelter to the co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Kumar

@ Sunny, who had thrown explosive material outside the office of the CIA Staff,

Nawanshahr. The water cooler kept outside as well as the glass windowpanes were

1 of 12

damaged but no person was injured. He further submits that the appellant has been

in custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days and the co-accused, namely, Manish

Kumar @ Baba, Jivtesh Sethi and Pardeep Bhatti have been granted the benefit of

regular bail by this Court in CRA-D-653-2023, CRA-D-1060-2023 and CRA-D-

486-2023, after they had been in custody for 02 years, 04 months & 17 days; 02

years, 04 months & 27 days and 02 years, 05 months & 03 days on 17.09.2024,

03.10.2024 and 03.10.2024 respectively. He has relied upon the judgments of the

Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC

713 and Shoma Kanti Sen versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2024

SCCOnline SC 498, wherein by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

it has been held that long pre-trial incarceration by itself would entitle the accused

under UAPA to grant of bail. He has also cited the judgments of the Supreme

Court in the cases of Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra and another,

2023 SCCOnline 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari

versus State of Uttar Pradesh, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024,

decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of

Maharashtra, another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on

03.07.2024.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the appellant had given shelter to

the co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Kumar @ Sunny at his house and had also

arranged a Taxi for him to go to Chandigarh. He further submits that in his

disclosure statement, the appellant had admitted that he had concealed certain

explosive material in a well. During the investigation, the police had discovered

that the material had exploded and the remains of exploded material had been

2 of 12

recovered. He further submits that the appellant is also involved in another case

under the NDPS Act and 27 of the 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

He has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant has been in

custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days. He, therefore, submits that in view of

the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of

bail.

4. Heard.

5. The allegations against the appellant are that he had given shelter to

the co-accused and had facilitated his travel to Chandigarh. Pursuant to his

disclosure statement, the remains of the explosive material, which had already

exploded had been recovered from a well. No person had been injured in the

occurrence. We are conscious of the fact that the conditions for granting bail to an

accused under UAPA are stringent. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the

Court to carefully scrutinize the material against the appellant. We do not find

sufficient ground justifying his further incarceration, especially when the three co-

accused had been extended the benefit of regular bail after they had been in

custody for over two years. The appellant has been in custody for 03 years, 06

months & 14 days.

6. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right

to protection of life and liberty which also includes the right to speedy trial, which

is sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that

long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by

invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, 12 out of 50

prosecution witnesses have been examined and in such a situation, it

3 of 12

would be difficult to hazard a guess about the conclusion of the trial. The appellant

is in custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days. The Constitutional Court would

like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial,

becomes a punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra)

wherein it has been held that long custody would be an essential

factor while granting bail under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India

provides right to speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good

ground to grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has

also been held that the embargo under Section 43-D of UAPA would not negate the

powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The

relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:-

"It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. xxxxxxxxxxxx Instead, Section 43-D(5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well- settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of

4 of 12

tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion etc."

7. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen(supra), the Supreme Court has held

that generally pre-conviction detention at the investigation stage is necessary to

maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an accused from being a

fugitive from justice or to prevent further commission of an offence. Once it is

apparent that a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered

incarceration for a significant period of time, the Court would ordinarily be

obligated to enlarge them on bail as any form of deprival of liberty must be

proportionate to the facts of the case and also follow a just and fair procedure. A

balance must be made between the prosecution's right to lead evidence of its

choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the

respondent's rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. The relevant

extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"This Court has already accepted right of an accused under the said offences of the 1967 Act to be enlarged on bail founding such right on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This was in the case of Najeeb (supra), and in that judgment, long period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail-

restricting provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Pre- conviction detention is necessary to collect evidence (at the investigation stage), to maintain purity in the course of trial and also to prevent an accused from being fugitive from justice. Such detention is also necessary to prevent further commission of offence by the same accused. Depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by an accused, detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post-chargesheet stage has the sanction of law broadly on these reasonings. But any form of

5 of 12

deprival of liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable, following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be proportionate in the facts of a given case. These would be the overarching principles which the law Courts would have to apply while testing prosecution's plea of pre-trial detention, both at investigation and post-chargesheet stage."

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Vernon versus The State of

Maharashtra and another(supra) has held that serious allegations against

accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused. The relevant

extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) reference was made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier decisions of this court in the cases of State -vs- Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh -vs- State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC 118), the factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the appellants' case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no doubt are serious, but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967

6 of 12

Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act."

9. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed

Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh(supra), it has been held that right to life

and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is

overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from

granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal

statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions

would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute,

howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of

constitutionalism and the rule of law, of which liberty is an intrinsic part. The

relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"In Gurwinder Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court distinguished K.A. Najeeb (supra) holding that the appellant in K.A. Najeeb (supra) was in custody for five years and that the trial 25 of the appellant in that case was severed from the other co-accused whose trial had concluded whereupon they were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have been examined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

7 of 12

This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.

Xxxxxx continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. "

10. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of

Maharashtra, another(supra), the Supreme Court has observed that criminals are

not born but made. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to

speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Moreover, the purpose of

bail is only to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and bail is not to be

withheld as a form of punishment. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced

hereunder:-

"13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re-

8 of 12

emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option:

"The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial."

14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 INSC 311, this Court observed as under:

"21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.

22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of "prisonisation" a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as "a radical transformation" whereby the prisoner loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal

9 of 12

possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes.

23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal" (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 1940). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily."

Xxxxxxx

18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations."

11. In view of the above, especially when the appellant has been in

custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days, co-accused had been granted bail and

10 of 12

the end of the trial is not in sight as only 27 out of the 50 prosecution witnesses

have been examined, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal, the impugned

judgment is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail

subject to following conditions, besides furnishing of requisite bail bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned:-

(i) He shall furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties of ₹1 lakh

each;

(ii) He shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Trial Court, if he is

holding the same and it is still with him;

(iii) He shall appear before Trial Court on each and every date

unless exempted by Court;

(iv) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

summoned;

v) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

or who is cited as witness;

vi) He shall not involve in any criminal activity and if during the

pendency of trial, he is found involved in commission of any

offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency

would be free to approach this court for recalling this order and

cancellation of his bail;