Mere Photographs With Co-Accused Don't Establish Intent To Commit Terrorist Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Under UAPA

"Just because in some photographs the appellant was found together with Sunny and Umang, it cannot be held that the appellant had the intent of committing a terrorist act." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that merely being photographed with co-accused individuals does not establish an accused's intent to commit a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji observed that in the absence of corroborative link evidence, such photographs cannot justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration, thereby granting regular bail to a man accused of harbouring gang members of designated terrorist Goldy Brar.

The appellant, Anmolpreet Singh, challenged an order passed by the Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh, which had dismissed his bail application. He was arrested on February 28, 2024, in an FIR initially registered under the Arms Act, to which UAPA provisions were later added. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had provided shelter to co-accused persons who were members of Goldy Brar’s gang and had conducted a "recce" to murder a rival gangster.

The primary question before the court was whether the appellant's continued incarceration was justified under the stringent bail provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA without prima facie link evidence. The court was also called upon to determine if an indefinite delay in the conclusion of the trial, with only one out of fifty-six witnesses examined, violated the appellant's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Lack Of Prima Facie Evidence

The court thoroughly examined the material on record and noted a complete absence of link evidence connecting the appellant to the terrorist Goldy Brar or the commission of any UAPA offence. The bench highlighted that the prosecution failed to recover any incriminating material, such as mobile phones, to establish communication or financial transactions between the appellant and the main conspirators. The court observed that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, there was no legally admissible evidence against the appellant.

Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial

Addressing the prolonged custody of the appellant, the court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, particularly the K.A. Najeeb and Vernon judgments, to emphasize that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot negate the constitutional right to life and liberty. The bench noted that the appellant had been in custody for over two and a half years, yet the trial was moving at a glacial pace with only one out of 56 prosecution witnesses examined till date.

Courts Must Protect Article 21 Rights

The high court sharply criticised the mechanical denial of bail by lower courts in cases involving stringent statutes. The bench expressed that while the allegations might be serious, the duty of the courts is to objectively consider the charge-sheet and grant bail when a case is made out. The court reiterated that statutory restrictions must lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law, quoting the Supreme Court's observation that "criminals are not born out but made."

"If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution."

Bail Is The Rule, Jail An Exception

The court observed that the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence remains intact even under special penal statutes. The bench noted that the trial court and the special court had seemingly focused more on the general activities of banned organisations rather than objectively assessing the specific material against the appellant in the charge-sheet. The court stressed that the mere invocation of UAPA cannot be a tool for indefinite pre-trial detention.

"When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail... 'Bail is the rule and jail is an exception' is a settled law."

Impossibility Of Timely Trial Completion

The bench distinguished the present matter from cases where trials were actively progressing. The court observed that the State counsel was unable to provide any reasonable estimate regarding the time required to complete the recording of oral evidence. Concluding that the end of the trial was "not in sight," the court found that retaining the appellant in custody would be a direct infringement of his fundamental rights, leaving the court with no option but to release him.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the NIA Court dated July 16, 2024. The appellant was directed to be released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, and reporting to the nearest police station weekly.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026