Punjab and Haryana HC grants bail to Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu as state fails to set trial completion timeline
Court overturns trial court order, citing prolonged detention and insufficient evidence linking accused to terror activities
NewsArc Bureau
CHANDIGARH, September 8, 2025 — In a significant ruling at 05:47 PM IST today, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu, detained for over five years, citing the state’s failure to establish a timeline for trial completion under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision, delivered by Justices Deepak Sibal and Lapita Banerji in CRA-D-1103-2022 (O&M) on September 2, 2025, reversed the October 31, 2022, order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kapurthala, which had rejected the appellant’s bail plea while exercising Special Court powers.
The FIR No. 140, lodged on May 7, 2020, at Sultanpur Lodhi Police Station in Kapurthala, initially charged Sukhjinder under Sections 384, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, and 489 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, Sections 13, 18, and 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were added, followed by IPC Sections 120-B, 482, 121, 121-A, and 122, alleging involvement in unlawful and terrorist activities, including extortion and arms possession.
Counsel Saurav Bhatia and Kuljinder Billing argued that, aside from a .32 bore pistol with 15 live cartridges and Rs. 50,000 in cash, no incriminating evidence tied Sukhjinder to UAPA offenses. They noted that five co-accused, including main accused Baljinder Singh @ Billa, received interim bail between July and August 2022. Citing Supreme Court cases like Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 498), they asserted that prolonged custody entitles bail under Article 21, especially with no trial progress after the charge-sheet was filed on February 22, 2021.
State counsel Sartej Singh Gill countered, pointing to a raid on co-accused Lovepreet Singh @ Love’s house, where high-tech arms, ammunition, drug money (Rs. 7,00,818), passports, and luxury cars were seized, suggesting Sukhjinder’s involvement in anti-national acts. He invoked Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 2 SCC Criminal 676 to uphold UAPA’s stringent bail conditions under Section 43D(5).
The High Court, however, found no specific evidence linking Sukhjinder beyond his presence and the minor recovery. Co-accused statements vaguely mentioned him in a car-snatching incident without proving a direct role. Citing Vernon v. State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC OnLine SC 885) and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693), the bench ruled that serious allegations alone cannot justify prolonged detention, especially with 36 witnesses unexamined and no trial end in sight after five years, two months, and 30 days. The court clarified that Section 43D(5) does not limit constitutional powers, distinguishing cases like Gurwinder Singh where trials advanced.
Bail was granted with conditions: a Rs. 10 lakh bond with two sureties, passport surrender, regular court appearances, non-interference with witnesses, and police reporting. Breach could lead to cancellation. This ruling, aligning with Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) 10 SCC 574 and Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 322), reinforces that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” emphasizing liberty over trial delays in UAPA cases lacking prima facie terror links.
