Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail to Man Who Painted Khalistan Slogans, Finds Co-Accused Already Bailed Despite Graver Roles

The Division Bench found that co-accused who supplied the flag, paint cans and money had already secured bail, making continued detention of the slogan-painter difficult to sustain under UAPA.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, allowed the bail appeal of Jugraj Singh @ Sony on 21 July 2026, overturning the refusal order dated 17 March 2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Jugraj Singh had been in custody since 18 February 2025 — over a year and five months — in connection with FIR No. 8 dated 12 February 2025, registered at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur, under Sections 192 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 153 and 120-B of the IPC) and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The court's reasoning turned on the limited physical role attributed to the appellant and the fact that co-accused with demonstrably heavier roles had already been released on bail by a coordinate bench of the same court.

The Incident and the Prosecution Case

According to the prosecution, on 12 February 2025, SI/SHO Gurpal Singh and other police personnel were conducting patrolling and suspect-checking near Bus Stand, Satauj, when at around 2:30 PM they received secret information that Khalistan slogans had been written on the wall of an electricity grid on Tolawal Road, village Satauj. A yellow-coloured flag bearing the words “Deg Teg Fateh,” a Khanda symbol, and the slogan ‘Khalistan Jindabad’ was also found hanging on the wall. The prosecution alleged that a video had been made viral on social media by Gurpatwant Singh Pannu of Sikh For Justice, generating fear among the public and creating bitterness between communities.

Police removed the slogans and seized the flag. On 16 February 2025, DSP Prithvi Singh Chahal received information identifying Jugraj Singh @ Sony and Gurmeet Singh @ Gitti as the persons responsible. Gurmeet Singh @ Gitti was arrested on 17 February 2025. Jugraj Singh, who was then confined in a jail at Mansa in a separate rape case, was arrested on 18 February 2025 pursuant to production warrants.

Jugraj Singh's disclosed statement, as set out in the prosecution version, painted an elaborate chain of contacts. He stated that while in Bathinda jail, he met one Amritpal Singh, who claimed to be pro-Khalistani and offered him Rs. 20,000 for writing Khalistan slogans on government walls — money funded from abroad. One Baljit Singh @ Prabhu was also part of those discussions. After Jugraj Singh was released on parole on 14 January 2025, he received calls on WhatsApp from one Baljinder Singh, who identified himself as Amritpal Singh's brother. Baljinder Singh sent him the specific slogans to be written, supplied two cans of black paint and the yellow flag, and facilitated a conference call with Baljit Singh @ Prabhu who promised an additional Rs. 2,000 for expenses.

Jugraj Singh then met co-accused Gurmeet Singh @ Gitti at a local doctor's shop, and the two proceeded with muffled faces to village Satauj, where they painted slogans on the wall of the electricity board, affixed the yellow flag, and wrote another slogan on the wall of a sheller. They photographed the signboard of village Satauj and sent the images to Baljinder Singh. Jugraj Singh subsequently recovered the Oppo mobile phone, which was taken into police possession. Empty paint cans were recovered from near a drain close to a Pippal tree.

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, argued that the role attributed to Jugraj Singh was essentially physical execution of the slogan-writing at the behest of others. He contended that the appellant had been in custody since 18 February 2025, amounting to over one year and five months of actual detention. The investigation was stated to be complete. Beyond the empty paint cans, no other material recovery had been effected from the appellant. Counsel pressed the argument of co-accused parity: Baljinder Singh, who had supplied the flag and paint cans and directed the appellant to the specific government buildings, had been granted regular bail by a coordinate bench vide order dated 17 March 2026 in CRA-D-1508-2025. Co-accused Atarveer Singh, who had transferred money to Gurmeet Singh @ Gitti, had similarly been granted bail vide order dated 17 March 2026 in CRA-D-1051-2025.

On the substantive charge, counsel contended that painting slogans on a public wall amounted, at most, to defiling a public place and did not constitute an offence under UAPA. He also contended that writing ‘Khalistan Jindabad’ slogans was not itself prohibited by law.

The State, represented by Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, pointed to the appellant's status as a convict in another matter and his alleged contact with Sikh For Justice, a banned outfit, while in jail. The State, however, did not dispute that Jugraj Singh had been in custody since 18 February 2025, that the investigation was complete, or that no role beyond the wall-painting and an alleged transfer of Rs. 20,000 had been attributed to him.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench's oral judgment, authored by Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, weighed four factors together: the specific and limited role attributed to the appellant, the recovery of only empty paint cans, the period of custody already undergone, and the fact that co-accused bearing heavier operational roles had already been granted regular bail.

The bench did not accept the prosecution's framing that the slogan-writing exercise, however objectionable, automatically sustained the full weight of UAPA offences for the person who physically wielded the paint brush, particularly when those who organised, funded and directed the activity were already at liberty. The State's concession that nothing beyond the wall-painting and the alleged cash transfer had been attributed to the appellant became a significant factual anchor.

The court noted that Baljinder Singh had supplied the flag, the paint cans and the target locations. Atarveer Singh had transferred money to Gurmeet Singh @ Gitti. Both had been bailed by a coordinate bench on the very same date — 17 March 2026 — on which the Additional Sessions Judge at Sangrur had refused Jugraj Singh's bail. That contemporaneous divergence between the trial court's refusal and the coordinate bench's grants to the more culpable co-accused formed the central basis for the High Court's intervention.

Conditions Imposed

The bench directed Jugraj Singh to be released on his furnishing requisite bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial court or the Duty Magistrate concerned. Two express conditions were attached: the appellant shall not extend any threat to any person, and shall not influence any prosecution witness, directly or indirectly.

The court also clarified that its observations shall not be read as an expression on the merits of the case, and that the trial court shall decide the matter on the basis of available material.

Outcome

CRA-D-750-2026 was allowed. The order dated 17 March 2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the bail application in FIR No. 8 dated 12 February 2025 (Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur) under Sections 192 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was set aside. A delay of nine days in filing the appeal was condoned under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. All pending applications were disposed of. The decision was pronounced on 21 July 2026.