The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man booked under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with a 2021 case relating to the alleged putting up of pro-Khalistan posters carrying the words “Punjab Referendum 2020” in various districts of Punjab.
The case traces its origins to September 16, 2021, when police allegedly received secret information that certain persons were putting up pro-Khalistan posters in Ropar, Mohali, Fatehgarh Sahib, Khanna and Ludhiana. Acting on the information, police registered an FIR against several persons, including the appellant.
The appellant approached the High Court after the Special Court at Mohali dismissed his plea for regular bail.
Considering the matter, a Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed that the appellant had remained in custody for around four years and eight months and was stated to have no criminal antecedents.
“Thus, considering the entirety of facts and the period of custody which is prima facie excessive for the purpose of pre-trial incarceration, and the undertaking furnished on behalf of the appellant through his learned counsel, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail,” the Bench observed.
The court added that continued incarceration of the appellant during the pendency of the trial would “occasion grave injustice”.
The ruling came in a case where the appellant had approached the High Court through an appeal filed under Section 28 of the UAPA, a provision dealing with forfeiture of property, whereas the matter before the court concerned denial of regular bail.
Refusing to allow the error to defeat the plea, the Bench held: “The mere invocation of an incorrect statutory provision cannot operate to deprive the accused of their substantive right to challenge the curtailment of their personal liberty by the State agencies.”
The court added: “Every court possesses inherent powers to rectify the clerical or procedural error(s) to ensure that mere technicalities do not impede the cause of substantial justice.”
Accordingly, the Bench directed that the appeal be treated as one filed under the appropriate provision governing challenges to bail orders.
While granting bail, the court also reiterated that prolonged pre-trial incarceration could not be allowed to continue indefinitely and observed that liberty could not be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities.
The appellant was ordered to be released on bail subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the court.
