Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 1415-Day Delay and Grants Default Bail in UAPA Case on Parity; Holds Right to Default Bail Cannot Be Defeated by Technicalities

Case Name: Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 19 December 2025

Citation: CRA-D-260-2022

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ramesh Kumari

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court condoned a delay of 1415 days in filing the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant under Section 167(2) CrPC, holding that the right to default bail is an indefeasible and one-time right which cannot be defeated by procedural or technical objections. The Court held that where a co-accused, who was identically situated and had filed a joint application for default bail, had already been granted default bail by the Supreme Court, parity and constitutional fairness required extension of the same benefit to the appellant.

Summary: The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No.121 dated 18 November 2018 registered at Police Station Raja Sansi, Amritsar, involving serious offences under the IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, arising out of a grenade attack at a religious congregation which resulted in multiple injuries and deaths. The appellant and co-accused Bikramjit Singh had jointly applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days. Their application was dismissed by the SDJM, Ajnala, on the ground that time for filing challan had been extended to 180 days.

Subsequently, the order extending time was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge on revision, rendering the extension non est. Despite this, the joint application seeking default bail was again rejected, and further revision and bail applications were dismissed. While the co-accused alone pursued the matter up to the Supreme Court and was granted default bail in October 2020, the appellant did not approach higher forums at that stage due to lack of financial means.

After the co-accused was granted default bail, the appellant approached the High Court. The appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 1415 days. The State opposed the application contending that Section 21 of the NIA Act bars condonation beyond 90 days and that the appeal was virtually a second revision.

The Division Bench examined the statutory scheme of Section 21 of the NIA Act and held that although the limitation prescribed is strict, peculiar and exceptional circumstances existed in the present case. The Court noted that default bail is a one-time and indefeasible right, unlike regular bail, and denial of condonation would permanently extinguish the appellant’s statutory right. The Court also took note of prolonged incarceration of nearly seven years, slow progress of trial with only 60 out of 128 prosecution witnesses examined, and the fact that the appellant stood on identical footing with the co-accused who had already secured default bail from the Supreme Court.

Relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Sanjay Dutt, Uday Mohanlal Acharya, Sayed Mohd. Ahmad Kazmi, Union of India v. Nirala Yadav and Rakesh Kumar Paul, the Court reiterated that once an accused avails of the right to default bail by filing an application after expiry of the statutory period, subsequent filing of challan cannot defeat that right.

Decision: The application for condonation of delay was allowed and the delay of 1415 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted the same relief by the Supreme Court. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court.