‘No anti-India activity’: Punjab and Haryana High Court’s bail rider for man in custody for 7 years over Khalistani links

“The appellant, through his counsel, undertakes not to indulge in any Anti-India activity and also that he would not cross the limits of his speech and expression beyond what is permitted… considering the entire facts and the pre-trial custody…is excessive for the purpose of pretrial custody…we are of the considered opinion that his further custody is not required,” the high court said in its March 10 order.

‘Propagating secessionist movement’

• The accused allegedly propagated the secessionist movement of the Khalistan Referendum 2020.
• There were allegations of pasting posters and banners containing the words “Khalistan Zindabad” and “Khalistan Referendum 2020”.
• There were also allegations of conspiracy to procure weapons, including arson, efforts for arms training in Pakistan, and acts of violence in Punjab and various parts of India.
• On October 19, 2018, the Amritsar police apprehended Sukhmandar with another accused on the spot while they were hanging ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ and ‘Khalistan Referendum 2020’ banners on the pillars of a flyover.
• The investigation led to the arrest of many, including the accused, and then the matter was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
• The case of the NIA is about receiving funds from outside India, sent by members of the banned outfit Sikhs for Justice (SFJ).

• It was alleged that they were to be used for furthering terror activities and other preparatory acts, such as attempts to procure weapons for terror activities in India and to get arms training in Pakistan.
• The accused held in the case were members of a terrorist gang formed by the notified terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun for the propagation of the secessionist movement “Punjab Referendum 2020” by SFJ.
• The accused, along with others, use Facebook pages called Sada Punjab, Khalistan Zindabad and many other YouTube channels containing Khalistan-related material to recruit Sikh youths, particularly from Punjab.
• This is allegedly done with an aim to further use them to carry out unlawful acts in different parts of Punjab and Delhi and to threaten the unity, integrity, and security of India.
• They allegedly planned to do so by way of pasting posters of “Referendum 2020” in different parts of Punjab, damaging the property of liquor shops and targeting people of other communities in the name of revenge for the sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib.

Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur allowed the appeal noting that the accused has been in custody for seven years, two months and 22 days.

‘No recovery of weapon’

• There was no recovery of any weapon from the accused, but the only evidence against him is digital evidence, which was recovered from his phone, indicating his involvement, the court noted.
• However, the custody of the accused in this case is seven years, two months and 22 days as per the custody certificate.
• The accused was arrested primarily on the allegations of visiting Delhi for the target killing of Paramjit Kaur as directed by Nihal Singh.
• The accused should be released on bail in connection with the First Information Report (FIR), subject to furnishing bonds of Rs 1 lakh.
• This bail is conditional, with a foundational condition that if the accused repeats the offence or commits any non-bailable offence which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than three years, the state should file an application to revoke this bail, and the court may cancel this bail.

‘Restrict possession of firearms’

• Restricting firearms would instil confidence in society, and it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offence.
• The high court found that, given the background of allegations against the accused, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society as well as the integrity of the country, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report, discharge, or acquittal.
• It would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms from the accused.
• The court directed the accused to surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms licence, to the concerned authority within 15 days of release from prison.
• However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the accused should be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case.

No right to speech beyond Article 19

• Appearing for the accused, senior advocate R S Bains argued that his client would have no objection to any stringent conditions that this court may impose for granting bail.
• He even emphasised that the court may impose conditions, including that if the accused repeats the offence or commits any non-bailable offence which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the state may file an application to revoke this bail.
• He further submitted that his client should not use his right of speech and expression beyond what is permitted under Article 19 (freedom of speech) of the Constitution of India.
• On the contrary, deputy attorney general Pooja Nayar Sharma opposed the appeal of the accused.