Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused After Nearly Five Years in Custody, Reframes Appeal Under NIA Act

A Division Bench corrected the wrong statutory provision invoked by the accused, treated the appeal under Section 21(4) NIA, and granted bail citing prolonged pre-trial custody and weak direct evidence.

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, on 29 May 2026 allowed the bail appeal of Sukhdev Singh @ Rinku, an accused in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case arising from the “Referendum 2020” pro-Khalistan pamphlet campaign. The accused had been in custody for approximately four years and eight months. Before reaching the merits, the Bench addressed a threshold procedural problem: the appeal had been filed under Section 28 of UAPA, a provision that deals with forfeiture of property, not bail. The Bench exercised inherent powers to treat the appeal as one filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the correct provision for challenging bail refusals by NIA Special Courts. On the merits, the Bench found the direct evidence against the appellant thin and held that continued incarceration would occasion grave injustice.

The FIR and the Accused’s Role

FIR No. 07, dated 16 September 2021, was registered at the State Special Operation Cell, District SAS Nagar, Punjab. The offences included Section 124A (sedition), Sections 153A and 153B, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 17, 18, 20, 40, and 18-B of UAPA. The FIR named multiple accused, including Sukhdev Singh, after police received information that they were affixing pro-Khalistan posters bearing the words “Punjab Referendum 2020” across Rupnagar, Mohali, Fatehgarh Sahib, Khanna, and Ludhiana.

The prosecution's case centred on material recovered from the house of co-accused Gurwinder Singh: approximately 2,78,500 printed pages, wooden frames for printing flags bearing “Khalistan Punjab Referendum 2020” and “Farmers Solution Khalistan”, spray paints, printed flags, a heavy-duty printing machine, laptops, and other equipment. The prosecution alleged the material was intended to disintegrate India and propagate the Referendum 2020 campaign.

Sukhdev Singh's specific role, as set out in the prosecution's reply, rested on his alleged criminal conspiracy with Gurwinder, digital records showing mobile phone contact between them, tower location data, and vehicle movement allegedly used to distribute pamphlets. Jagjeet Singh Mangat was found innocent during investigation and placed in column 2 of the charge-sheet. Several other named accused, including Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, could not be arrested and were similarly placed in column 2.

The Procedural Question: Which Provision Governs the Appeal?

The appellant had filed the appeal under Section 28 of UAPA. The Bench noted that Section 28 governs appeals against orders of forfeiture of property under UAPA and has no application to bail matters. The correct route, the Bench held, is Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie before the High Court against an order of rejection of bail by a Special Court constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act. The UAPA offences in this case were being investigated and prosecuted under the NIA framework, as the DySP, SSOC, confirmed in the reply dated 29 April 2026.

The Bench held that invoking an incorrect statutory provision cannot deprive an accused of the substantive right to challenge curtailment of personal liberty. Every court possesses inherent powers to rectify procedural errors so that technicalities do not impede substantial justice. Accordingly, the appeal was deemed to have been filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.

Why the Bench Found the Evidence Insufficient to Sustain the Embargo

Section 43D(5) of UAPA imposes a stringent embargo: bail “shall not be released” if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 CrPC, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The Bench contrasted this with the permissive language of Section 437(1) CrPC, which uses “may be released”, and acknowledged the legislative intent to make bail the exception.

However, the Bench examined the actual evidence against Sukhdev Singh. The investigating officer, PW2 SI Harminder Singh, stated in cross-examination that the police did not recover any postal or other incriminating material from Sukhdev's house, only his mobile phone. Paragraph 12 of the prosecution's reply confirmed that when the phone was sent for forensic examination to the State Cyber Crime unit, nothing was retrieved from it. The incriminating digital material — registration forms, videos, voter data, printing machine footage — was retrieved from the phones of Gurwinder Singh and Jagwinder Singh, not from the appellant.

The evidence against Sukhdev, the Bench found, was not direct but based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Gurwinder and information gathered during investigation. The Bench noted that such material is subject to admissibility constraints under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (or its successor Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), since nothing was recovered from the appellant himself. Given the quality and legal admissibility of this evidence, the Bench concluded there were reasons to believe the accused had overcome the hurdle of the Section 43D(5) embargo.

Article 21 and the Weight of Nearly Five Years in Custody

The Bench drew on a line of Supreme Court authority to hold that constitutional courts are not ousted from granting bail merely because a statute imposes restrictive conditions. Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 443, the Bench reiterated that the rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA “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 custody certificate dated 4 May 2026 showed the appellant had been in custody for four years, seven months, and fourteen days in the present FIR, with no criminal antecedents. By the date of the order, the period had reached approximately four years and eight months. The Bench held that continued incarceration during the pendency of trial would occasion grave injustice. It also referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, [2022] 6 SCR 382, for the proposition that bail applications are not punitive in nature and that an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would itself be a grave injustice.

Bail Bond Conditions and Directions on Surety Verification

The Bench set the personal bail bond at Rs. 25,000 and the surety bail bond at Rs. 25,000, to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial court or, in the absence of the trial judge, before the nearest Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional CJM, Duty Magistrate, or Illaqa Magistrate. The Bench expressly noted that given the serious nature of the UAPA offences, the bond amounts were kept on the higher side, while simultaneously ensuring they were not so onerous as to amount to a de facto refusal of bail, following the Supreme Court's guidance in Guddan alias Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC Online SC 1242.

As an alternative to a personal surety, the appellant may deposit an equivalent fixed deposit of Rs. 25,000 with automatic renewal facility, with interest not to accumulate, drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned Sessions Division. A blocked funds arrangement of equivalent value is also permitted.

The Bench issued broader directions on surety verification. It held that Aadhaar-based biometric identification is sufficient to verify a surety's identity and that courts and attesting officers shall not insist on verification through Lambardars, Sarpanches, ward members, or similar local officials unless Aadhaar identification is not possible. The Bench observed that the practice of demanding such verification has enabled an illicit business of charging fees for verification services and facilitating fake professional sureties.

The Bench also reiterated directions from a co-ordinate Division Bench in Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025, that downloaded copies of bail orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by courts before whom bail bonds are furnished, so that liberty granted by a court is not delayed by systemic inefficiency.

Conditions Attached to the Bail

The appellant's counsel undertook before the court that the appellant would not indulge in any anti-India activity and would not cross the limits of speech and expression beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench imposed the following conditions, among others:

• The appellant shall not make, publish, or disseminate any information, statement, article, or post — whether in print, electronic, or social media — concerning the present case or its participants until conclusion of the trial. He shall not circulate any post in electronic or physical form, or circulate handbills, posters, or banners in any form.
• If the appellant repeats the offence or commits any non-bailable offence carrying imprisonment of more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act involving more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or violates Sections 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, that itself shall be sufficient ground for cancellation of bail.
• The appellant shall appear before the concerned court on all dates and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
• The personal bail bond shall remain in force throughout the trial and thereafter in terms of Section 481 BNSS, 2023.
• Any application for modification of bail conditions may be filed before the trial court, which is also competent to modify or delete conditions.

The Bench clarified that all observations in the order are tentative, do not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits, and shall have no bearing on the trial or on the case of co-accused persons.

Outcome

The Division Bench set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, dated 8 April 2026, dismissing the bail application. The appeal, CRA-D-616-2026, was allowed. Sukhdev Singh @ Rinku is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a surety bond of Rs. 25,000, subject to the conditions set out in the order. All pending applications stand disposed of.