ASHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, namely Ashish Kumar, has challenged the order dated January 08, 2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby his bail application in FIR No.02 of 5/2/2020 registered under Sec. 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, Ss. 10,13,18,20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UAPA'), at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the accused-appellant was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but except for alleged recovery of one .30 bore pistol along with 04 live cartridges, no other incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from him which could connect or link him to any offence under the UAPA. Apart from the purported statements of chance witnesses- Kulwinder Singh @ Kala, Amrik Singh and Nishant Sharma, there was no evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the appellant to commission of any crime, more so to an offence under the UAPA. Furthermore, he submits that only 01 out of 40 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far despite passage of more than 05 years of incarceration of the appellant.

(3.) In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. KA. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gularn Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.