[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit @ Ballu vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2026
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M)
Dated: 02.04.2026
Rohit alias Ballu
...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
ROHIT KAPOOR , J. (Oral)
CRM-47620-2024
The instant application has been filed seeking condonation of delay
of 5 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide which
bail application of the applicant/appellant has been rejected.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
delay is condoned.
Main case
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby his
bail application in FIR No.241 dated 08.11.2021 registered under sections 307,
427, 212, 120-B IPC; sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; sections
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -2-
13, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short
'UAPA'); and section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station City
Nawanshahr, has been dismissed.
2. The allegations against the accused are that he is an accomplice of
the co-accused Kuldeep alias Sunny and Amandeep alias Amnu who were
involved in an occurance of bomb blast at CIA Staff office, Nawanshahr with an
intention to murder the officials of the CIA. It is specifically alleged that during
interrogation, the appellant/accused has confessed that he was part of a larger
conspiracy of carrying out acts of violence on the asking of co-accused Rinda
Baba who is an active head of Babbar Khalsa Group, who has further connection
with Wadhawa Singh Babbar. It is further alleged that the appellant/accused has
disclosed that under the lure of money, he along with the accused Kuldeep alias
Sunny, Jivtesh Sethi, and Amandeep alias Amnu were involved in an incident of
bomb blast at police post Kalma.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who is a
young man of 30 years of age, was not named in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in the matter. It is argued that the appellant is not connected to the
alleged incident of throwing of explosive material outside the office of the CIA
Staff, Nawanshahr directly, and was apprehended on the alleged receipt of a
secret information regarding carrying of explosive substances pertaining to some
other incident. It is submitted that nothing except one mobile phone and one car
has been recovered from the appellant. He is in custody for almost 4 years. The
challan has already been presented on 10.09.2022 and charges stand framed.
Nothing is to be recovered from the appellant, and no useful purpose would be
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -3-
served by keeping him in indefinite custody. It is pointed out that about 29 out of
the total 50 witnesses are yet to be examined, and conclusion of the trial is likely
to take a long time. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to various orders
passed by this Court granting bail to the co-accused Manish alias Baba, Jivtesh
Sethi, Pardeep Bhatti, and Amandeep alias Amnu, and contends that the appellant
also deserves to be granted bail on the ground of parity. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment 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 it has been held
that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to grant of bail
by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference is also made to 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, Surinder kumar Khanna vs. Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271, and Lohit Kaushal vs. State of Haryana, 2009
17 SCC 106.
4. The prayer for grant of bail to the appellant is vehemently opposed
by the learned State counsel. He submits that the appellant/accused is part of a
larger conspiracy to destabilize the nation, by carrying out acts of violence. It is
argued that the appellant along with his other co-accused is actively involved in
commission of serious offences which threaten the unity, integrity, security and
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -4-
sovereignty of India and their intent is to strike terror in people of India. It is
further submitted that the appellant is also involved in another case u/s 435, 427,
120-B of the IPC and section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. He has filed the
custody certificate which indicates that the appellant has been in custody for a
total period of 3 years, 10 months and 7 days as on 10.03.2026. It is therefore
submitted that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not
entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Heard.
6. The allegations against the appellant are that he is an accomplice of
the co-accused Kuldeep alias Sunny and facilitated his travel in his car and was
also involved in the procurement and placing of bomb at police post Kalma. It
may be noticed that there is no allegation regarding his direct involvement in the
commission of offence of throwing of hand grenade at the office of the CIA Staff,
Nawanshahr. His alleged involvement regarding a separate act of planting of
bomb at police post Kalma is only based upon confessional statements made
during the course of interrogation. No explosive substance has been recovered
from him, and the only recovery is that of one mobile phone and one S-Presso
car, allegedly used for facilitating the commuting of the co-accused Kuldeep alias
Sunny. Nothing has been brought to our notice regarding any injury having been
caused to any person on account of the alleged planting of bomb at police post
Kalma. 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 four other
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -5-
co-accused, including Kuldeep alias Sunny and Amandeep alias Amnu from
whom one pistol along with live cartridge and one tiffin bomb was recovered,
have been granted the benefit of regular bail. The case of the appellant is at a far
better footing as there is no such recovery from him, and the allegations are
limited to facilitation of travel of the co-accused, and at best being involved in
carrying of explosive substance.
7. 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, a large number of witnesses are yet to be examined and in such a situation,
it would be difficult to hazard a guess about the conclusion of the trial. The
appellant is in custody for a period of 3 years, 10 months and 7 days as on
10.03.2026. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the
lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the 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
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -6-
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
wellsettled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of
tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the
accused evading the trial by absconsion etc."
8. 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
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -7-
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 bailrestricting
provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Preconviction 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 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."
9. 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
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -8-
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 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."
10. 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:-
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -9-
"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.
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."
11. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of
Maharashtra, another(supra), the Supreme Court has observed that criminals are
not born out but made. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -10-
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 reemphasized
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
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -11-
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 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."
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -12-
12. In view of the above settled position of law and in view of the fact
that the appellant has been in custody for a total period of 3 years, 10 months and
7 days as on 10.03.2026; the co-accused have been granted bail; and culmination
of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, we deem it appropriate to allow
the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. 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 10 lakh with two sureties of Rs.10 lakh
each;
(ii) He shall surrender his passport, if any, in 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;
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -13-
(vii) He shall not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third party
right over his immovable property;
(viii) He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of his
absence, Trial Court may proceed with trial and he shall not claim
re-examination of any witness.
(ix) At the time of release of the appellant, the SHO, Police Station City
Nawanshahr, SBS Nagar, shall be informed. He shall appear before
the SHO on every alternate Monday till the conclusion of the trial.
13. In the event there is a breach of any of the abovementioned
conditions, or of the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it
would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting
appellant without any further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the appellant
seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or
indirectly, then also the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail
of the concerned appellant by making appropriate application before the Trial
Court.
14. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are only
for the determination of appeal seeking bail and shall have no bearing on the
merits of the trial.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (ROHIT KAPOOR)
JUDGE JUDGE
02.04.2026
Mohit goyal
CRA-D-1660-2024 (O&M) -14-
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
