Mere Delay in Trial Cannot Outweigh Threats to National Security: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in Khalistani Slogans Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused bail to an accused charged with sedition and cyber terrorism, ruling that delay in trial is not a sufficient ground for release when allegations involve a direct threat to national security. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, while delivering judgment on January 9, 2025, in Raman @ Sonu v. State of Punjab, dismissed the plea under Section 439 CrPC, emphasizing that the petitioner’s alleged acts were “not merely criminal but have the potential to incite violence, foster communal discord, and destabilize the social fabric of the State.”

“Acts Aimed at Reviving the Khalistani Movement Cannot Be Taken Lightly”: Court Declines Bail

The accused was seeking bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Cantt., Jalandhar, under Sections 121-A, 124-A, 153-A, and 120-B IPC, along with Sections 66A and 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations included writing pro-Khalistani slogans on public property and circulating inflammatory videos on social media. Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, the court observed, “Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner are not only serious but strike at the core of national integrity and public security.”

The petitioner contended that he had been incarcerated since September 7, 2022, and the trial was being unduly delayed. His counsel argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, that there was no incriminating material against him, and that the delay in obtaining sanction for prosecution made his continued detention unjustified. The State, however, opposed the bail, asserting that the accused was involved in multiple FIRs across Punjab and Himachal Pradesh for similar offences, and that his actions posed a “direct and severe threat to the sovereignty and security of the state.”

Court Emphasizes National Security Over Trial Delay in Bail Considerations

While acknowledging some delay in the trial, the court held that procedural requirements, including the necessity of sanction from the central government, contributed to the delay. The prosecution pointed out that key witnesses, including the complainant and the investigating officer, had already been examined, contradicting the petitioner’s claim that evidence had not been recorded.

Referring to NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, the court reaffirmed that “bail in cases affecting national security should be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances.” It also cited State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle (2021) 3 SCC 71, emphasizing that multiple FIRs for similar offences strengthen the case against bail. Addressing the argument of trial delay, the court relied on Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 872, holding that “delay in trial is not an absolute ground for bail if allegations involve threats to national integrity.”

“Threats to Sovereignty Cannot Be Ignored”: Court Dismisses Bail Plea

In its concluding remarks, the court made it clear that “the allegations against the petitioner pose a direct and severe threat to the sovereignty and security of the State. Therefore, in view of the serious and grave allegations, this Court does not deem it fit to accept the prayer of the petitioner.” The petition was dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial.

Reaffirming the principle that national security concerns must override procedural delays in bail considerations, the court’s decision sends a strong message about the gravity with which it views acts of sedition, cyber terrorism, and separatist propaganda.