DEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.46 dtd. 31/5/2018 under Ss. 307, 438, 427, 148, 149 IPC (Ss. 121, 121-A, 122, 124-A, 115, 120-B IPC, Ss. 11, 12, 13, 17, 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'the UAPA'), Ss. 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and Sec. 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 added later on), registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, District Batala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein it is alleged that a wine shop had been set on fire. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused Dharminder Singh @ Fauji. In the course of investigation and in the statement of co-accused Dharminder Singh @ Fauji, it transpires that the petitioner on her Facebook account had posted about 'Sikhs for Justice 2020 Referendum'. Besides this post on social media, there is no allegation that the petitioner had taken part in any unlawful activity. He also contends that 'Sikhs for Justice Organisation' had been banned by the Government of India in July, 2019 and the petitioner had posted on her facebook account on 31/5/2018 when the organisation was not yet banned. He further contends that even assuming the petitioner was a member of a banned organization she had not done any overt act of violence or anything to incite violence that would be covered under unlawful activities. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Indra Das versus State of Assam, 2011(3) SCC 380. The petitioner is a lady with three minor children, one of whom was born while she was in custody in the instant case. The infant is now one year and nine months old and is lodged with the petitioner in jail. Two other minor children are being looked after by her husband and other family members. Prior to the involvement of the petitioner in the instant FIR, she was not involved in any other case. She is in custody for over two years and three months since her arrest on 14/8/2019. The trial in the instant case has come to a standstill as a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No.1798 of 2019 preferred by co-accused Dharminder Singh @ Fauji against framing of charges, has stayed further proceedings and there is no likelihood that the trial will be concluded soon. Co-accused Harnam Singh and Nirmal Singh have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on 20/7/2018. He also contends that the petitioner would be entitled to the concession of regular bail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to speedy trial. He has cited the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, 2021(3) SCC 713 wherein the Supreme Court had directed the release of the petitioner merely on account of long custody even though the allegations were serious.

(3.) Learned State counsel, upon instructions from DSP Jitender Pal Singh, contends that the petitioner had actively indulged in unlawful activities and she was a part of a group which was carrying out activities related to referendum-2020. She also contends that the petitioner had circulated the video recording of the incident after the wine shop had been set on fire. The petitioner was maintaining three facebook IDs in the name of various persons. The recovery of six mobile phones and five pen drives have been effected from the petitioner. There is also an audio recording with regard to the petitioner being in conversation with co-accused wherein she was stating that they should get a newspaper registered and carry out assassinations. The petitioner was also demanding money for this and therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of National Investigation Agency versus Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019 AIR (SC)1734 and contends that only where a prima facie case under the UAPA is not made out, the Court can grant regular bail.