Right to Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed to Vague Intelligence and Uncorroborated Disclosure: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case

“No Recovery, No Corroboration, No Prima Facie Case—Continued Detention Violates Article 21”: In a strong reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards even in terror-related offences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting regular bail to Kuldeep Singh, who had been incarcerated for nearly 3 years under serious charges including those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the Arms Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji held that there existed no prima facie evidence against the appellant sufficient to justify his continued detention, especially when 36 out of 39 witnesses remained unexamined.

“Secret Information Remains Uncorroborated; No Recovery from Accused”—Court Discards UAPA Invocation Without Substantive Evidence

The case stemmed from FIR No. 140 dated 07.05.2020, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, against 13 individuals including the appellant. The FIR invoked numerous sections of IPC, Arms Act, and later, UAPA, based on "secret information" alleging the group’s involvement in dacoity, smuggling, terrorism, and forgery.

However, the Court found that the only material against the appellant was:

• A vague secret tip-off, whose source and details were unspecified.

• An uncorroborated disclosure statement of co-accused Baljinder Singh made while in police custody, alleging the appellant "maintained accounts" for illegal activities.

The Court categorically noted: “The source of the secret information, by its very nature, is unknown. Even otherwise, the same is found to be utterly vague... it also remains uncorroborated qua the appellant…”

“No recovery of any incriminating material, arms, ammunition, drugs or currency has been made from the appellant.”

“Continued Custody Without Evidence is an Affront to Article 21”—Court Cites SC’s Verdict in K.A. Najeeb and Vernon

While the State had vehemently opposed bail citing Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, the Court relied on multiple constitutional rulings to stress that statutory restrictions cannot override fundamental rights, especially right to a speedy trial.

Quoting Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], the Court said:

“The rigours of [Section 43-D(5)] 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.”

The Court added: “There are no reasonable grounds for believing that prima facie the accusations against the appellant under the UAPA are made out.”

“36 Prosecution Witnesses Remain—Trial Won’t End Anytime Soon” — High Court Deems Continued Incarceration Unjust

The Court recorded that: “As on date, the appellant has undergone actual custody of nearly 3 years and only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined... the appellant’s trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.”

In such circumstances, even under stringent laws like UAPA, denial of bail becomes constitutionally impermissible.

“When Co-Accused Are Granted Bail, Parity Cannot Be Denied”—Equal Treatment Enforced

The Court also relied on parity. The appellant’s co-accused, Lovepreet Singh @ Love and Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu, had already been granted bail under similar charges.

Justice Sibal noted: “There is yet another reason to grant bail... this Court through order dated 25.09.2023... and 02.09.2025 in respective appeals, has granted regular bail to similarly placed co-accused.”

“Liberty Is Too Precious to Be Sacrificed on Procedural Delays”—Court Lays Down Conditions for Bail

While granting bail, the Court imposed certain conditions:

• ₹10 lakh personal bond with two sureties

• Deposit of passport, regular attendance in trial

• Weekly marking of presence before local SHO

• Undertaking not to delay or tamper with proceedings

The Court added a strong warning: “If any of the above conditions... are breached by the appellant, it would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.”

It concluded with a critical reminder: “The purpose of bail is only to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and not to be withheld as a form of punishment.”

The High Court’s judgment in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab is a pivotal reaffirmation that even under the strict contours of UAPA, bail is not to be denied mechanically. The verdict carefully navigates the line between national security concerns and constitutional freedoms, asserting that prolonged incarceration without prima facie evidence is a violation of the right to life and liberty.

The ruling also sets a precedent for courts to scrutinize vague intelligence inputs and untested disclosure statements before applying UAPA bar to bail. It further reinforces that accused cannot be punished by delay, and that parity, evidence, and trial progress must guide bail decisions—not merely the seriousness of the allegations.

Date of Decision: 26.09.2025