Long Custody Without Trial Violates Article 21—Right To A Speedy Trial Is Sacrosanct: Punjab And Haryana High Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused

In a  recent judgement, Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Baljinder Singh @ Rambo, an accused who had been in custody for over two years without trial. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji allowed the bail application, citing the prolonged incarceration and lack of progress in the trial as violations of the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Despite the serious charges against him, the court emphasized that extended detention without trial cannot continue indefinitely, particularly when it infringes on constitutional rights.

The appellant, Baljinder Singh, had been charged under several stringent laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was implicated in a case involving an alleged conspiracy to attack the Intelligence Bhawan in Mohali, Punjab, with a weapon of military grade, specifically an AK-47 rifle. According to the prosecution, Singh was involved in handling the weapon, but no direct recovery was made from him, and his arrest was primarily based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.

The case against Baljinder Singh arose in May 2022, when he was arrested following an alleged attack on the Intelligence Bhawan in Mohali. The prosecution’s case is that Singh picked up a bag containing an AK-47 rifle and cartridges based on instructions from co-accused individuals involved in the conspiracy. Despite the seriousness of these allegations, Singh's involvement was based solely on the statement of a co-accused, with no direct evidence or material recovered from him.

The appellant remained in custody for over two years, during which time no charges were framed against him. While some of his co-accused were granted bail, Singh’s bail application had been previously denied, leading to this appeal before the High Court.

In seeking bail, Ms. Medha Kaushal, counsel for the appellant, argued that the prolonged detention of her client without progress in the trial constituted a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. She pointed out that Singh had been in custody for over two years and four months, yet the prosecution had failed to frame charges or begin the trial. Kaushal also highlighted that several co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail.

To support her argument, Kaushal referred to several Supreme Court rulings, particularly Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, which held that long detention without trial, even under stringent laws like the UAPA, could justify the granting of bail. She also cited recent Supreme Court decisions, including Shoma Kanti Sen vs State of Maharashtra (2024) and Vernon vs State of Maharashtra (2023), both of which underscored the principle that long incarceration violates fundamental rights, and that serious charges alone are insufficient to justify indefinite detention.

On behalf of the state, Mr. H.S. Sullar, Senior Deputy Advocate General for Punjab, opposed the bail application. He argued that the allegations against the appellant were severe and related to a potential threat to national security. Sullar emphasized that Singh’s involvement in handling an AK-47 rifle and his participation in a criminal conspiracy warranted continued detention. However, Sullar also acknowledged that no charges had been framed, and the trial had not yet progressed.

The court carefully weighed both the seriousness of the allegations and the appellant’s right to liberty. The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the charges but noted that Singh had been incarcerated for over two years without significant progress in the trial. The court stressed that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and prolonged detention without trial infringes on this fundamental right.

The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, where it was held that long detention could be grounds for granting bail, even under stringent laws like the UAPA. The court observed:

“Prolonged custody without progress in the trial amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.”

The court further noted that serious charges alone could not justify indefinite detention without trial. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vernon vs State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that the gravity of the allegations should not be the sole factor in deciding bail. The right to liberty and constitutional protections must also be considered, especially when the trial process has not progressed in a timely manner.

Given the appellant’s long incarceration and the lack of progress in the trial, the court granted Baljinder Singh regular bail, subject to several conditions:

The appellant must furnish a bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties of ₹1 lakh each.

He must surrender his passport and regularly appear before the court on all hearing dates.

He is prohibited from influencing witnesses or engaging in any criminal activities while on bail.

The appellant is also required to report to the local police station on a regular basis and comply with any additional conditions imposed by the trial court.

The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the merits of the ongoing trial.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to grant bail to Baljinder Singh @ Rambo highlights the importance of the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. While the court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations against the appellant, it underscored that prolonged pre-trial detention without significant progress in the trial violates the accused’s rights under Article 21. The court’s decision to grant bail, subject to strict conditions, reaffirms the principle that serious charges alone cannot justify indefinite detention, especially when the trial process is delayed.

This case serves as a reminder that the right to liberty and the right to a fair and speedy trial are core components of the Indian legal system, and courts must balance these rights against the seriousness of the allegations in each case.

Date of Decision: October 14, 2024

Baljinder Singh @ Rambo vs State of Punjab