Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA–Explosive Substances Case After Nearly Six Years of Custody; Holds Prolonged Incarceration on Sketchy Disclosure Evidence Unjust

Case Name: Rattan Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CRA-D-1123-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a criminal appeal and granted regular bail to the appellant accused under Sections 120-B and 304 IPC, provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court held that where the accused has undergone nearly six years of pre-trial incarceration, has no criminal antecedents, and the prosecution case rests primarily on faint and legally fragile disclosure statements of co-accused without clear attribution of role, continued detention would amount to grave injustice. Liberty was restored subject to stringent conditions.

Summary: The appellant sought regular bail after having remained in custody for almost six years in a case arising from a bomb blast that resulted in the death of one Ajay Sharma. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy involving multiple accused, claiming that explosive substances were procured and distributed through a network of persons belonging to the Namdhari sect. The appellant was implicated primarily on the basis of disclosure statements made by co-accused, suggesting that he was present during alleged meetings and had handed over explosive material as part of a larger conspiracy.

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the final report under Section 173 CrPC and noted that the prosecution narrative against the appellant lacked clarity and specificity. The Court found that even as per the disclosure statements, the source of the explosives was attributed to another accused, and the appellant’s role was at best peripheral and inferential. No independent or corroborative material was shown to establish his direct involvement in bomb-making or execution of the offence.

Significant weight was attached to the fact that the appellant had no criminal antecedents and had already suffered prolonged incarceration far exceeding reasonable pre-trial detention, with the trial still pending. The Court emphasised that deprivation of liberty cannot be justified indefinitely on the basis of speculative or sketchy material, particularly when the evidentiary foundation against the accused remains weak.

Balancing societal interest with individual liberty, the Court held that continued custody in such circumstances would result in irreversible injustice. The grant of bail was, however, made conditional upon strict compliance with detailed safeguards, including appearance on every date of hearing, surrender of firearms and arms licence, non-tampering with evidence, and an express condition permitting cancellation of bail upon involvement in any serious non-bailable offence.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The order of the Sessions Court rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bonds of ₹1 lakh, subject to stringent conditions imposed by the Court. The Court clarified that observations made were confined solely to the question of bail and would not influence the trial on merits.