The stringent bail regime of the UAPA does not displace the constitutional right to a speedy trial, and where an accused has been incarcerated for years with no realistic prospect of the trial concluding, that right can itself justify bail. Applying that principle, the Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s refusals and granted bail to Jagtar Singh Johal in a batch of NIA cases, recording that he has spent over eight years in custody, that 123 witnesses remain to be examined, and that the trial is not likely to conclude any time soon. The Court expressed no view on the merits, imposed stringent conditions, and left the prosecution free to seek cancellation on any breach.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Jagtar Singh Johal in a batch of connected cases registered by the National Investigation Agency under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and other provisions, holding that his continued incarceration for over eight years, with the trial nowhere near conclusion, warranted his release notwithstanding the rigours of the UAPA bail regime [Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency].
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in a judgment authored by Justice Chawla, set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge that had refused bail, and directed the appellant’s release on stringent conditions.
The cases
The appeals arose from a group of NIA cases in which the appellant is arrayed, involving charges under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21 and 23 of the UAPA, along with provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 302, and the Arms Act, 1959. These are the allegations of the prosecution; they have not been tested at trial, and the present proceedings concern only the appellant’s entitlement to bail, not the merits of the charges.
ALSO READ: 2012 Pune Blasts: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused After 12 Years In Jail
The right to a speedy trial under a stringent bail regime
The Court’s reasoning proceeded from the now-settled accommodation between the UAPA’s restrictive bail provisions and the fundamental right to a speedy trial. It reiterated the principle, established in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, that the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not oust the power of a constitutional court to grant bail where the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been infringed by a prolonged incarceration that the trial shows no sign of ending; in such cases, the rigours of the special statute yield to the constitutional guarantee.
Applying that test, the Court recorded the salient facts. The appellant had remained in custody for more than eight years. Although charges had been framed, only about 40 witnesses had so far been examined, with another 123 witnesses yet to be recorded, and, despite a substantial overlap of common witnesses across the connected cases, the trial was certainly not likely to conclude any time soon. The Court noted that even orders of the Supreme Court directing expedition had not, in practice, quickened the pace of the trial, and that the statements of the protected witnesses had not been recorded.
Persuasive value of the earlier orders
The Court gave weight to two earlier developments. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in March 2022, when the appellant had undergone about five years’ custody, granted him bail on the ground of delay in a case containing similar allegations, holding that constitutional courts ought to exercise the power to grant bail notwithstanding the limitations of special enactments, keeping in view the right to a speedy trial. Separately, a Sessions Court at Moga, Punjab had, in March 2025, acquitted the appellant on a similar allegation, both for want of proper sanction under Section 45(2) of the UAPA and on the merits, and that acquittal, the Court was informed, had attained finality and had not been challenged by the prosecution.
While accepting the agency’s submission that the acquittal could not operate as res judicata, the Court held that, since the appellant was being implicated in the present cases as a co-conspirator on similar averments, the acquittal carried strong persuasive value at least for the purpose of enlarging him on bail.
Flight risk and witness-tampering objections
The NIA opposed bail on the grounds that the appellant, a foreign national, was a flight risk, and that certain witnesses had complained of being threatened. On the first, the Court held that the appellant’s liberty could not be curtailed on that ground alone, and that appropriate conditions could be imposed to guard against the risk. On the second, it noted that several accused were facing trial in the cases and that no document had been produced to show that the alleged threats emanated from the appellant or at his behest; the objection, coupled with the long incarceration, did not persuade the Court to deny bail.
The conditions
Setting aside the trial court’s refusals, the Court directed the appellant’s release on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with two sureties, and on a set of stringent conditions. He is to surrender his passport, or file an affidavit that he holds none; use only one mobile or landline number, kept switched on; furnish and not change his contact particulars without prior intimation; cooperate with the trial and appear on each date; not contact, influence or threaten any witness or complainant; not tamper with evidence; and report to the investigating officer once a fortnight.
He was further directed not to make any public statement, including on social media, touching upon the merits of the case, the evidence, the witnesses or the pending trial; not to participate in any activity that may prejudice public order or the integrity of the trial; and not to join any group or platform where, or himself to circulate any material that, the order describes as anti-national. The Court made clear that any breach would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate court.
Why it matters
The judgment is an application, on striking facts, of a principle that has become central to bail jurisprudence under the anti-terror law. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA ordinarily bars bail where the court, on the case diary and the charge-sheet, finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation prima facie true; but the Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb held that this statutory restriction operates alongside, and does not extinguish, the constitutional right to a speedy trial, so that a constitutional court may grant bail where an accused has suffered a long incarceration with the trial unlikely to end within a reasonable time. Eight years in custody, with 123 witnesses still to be examined, is the paradigm such cases contemplate.
Two features give the decision additional weight. First, the Court did not rest on delay alone: it drew on a prior bail order of another High Court on similar allegations and, more significantly, on a Sessions Court acquittal on a similar allegation that had attained finality, treating the latter as carrying strong persuasive value at the bail stage while carefully accepting that it did not bind as res judicata. Second, the Court addressed the State’s specific objections, foreign nationality and alleged witness threats, on their merits, holding that neither, on the material before it, outweighed the appellant’s right to liberty after so long a period, and meeting the concerns instead through conditions.
It must be emphasised that this is a grant of bail and nothing more. The Court expressed no opinion on the truth of the allegations, which remain to be tested at a trial that will continue; bail is not an acquittal, and the stringent conditions, including the surrender of the passport, the fortnightly reporting and the restraints on public statements, are designed to secure the appellant’s presence and the integrity of that trial. The prosecution retains its liberty to seek cancellation should any condition be breached. What the Court has held is narrow but important: that even under the UAPA, the Constitution does not permit a person to be held indefinitely as an undertrial while a trial that shows no sign of concluding grinds on.
Case Title: Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency [CRL.A. 493/2023 and connected matters]
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Reserved: September 7, 2026 | Pronounced: September 18, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Jawahar Raja, with others, for the appellant. Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, with the Special Public Prosecutor, for the NIA.
Status: Appeals disposed of; trial court’s bail refusals set aside; appellant granted bail on stringent conditions. Allegations untested; no opinion expressed on the merits; prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation on breach.
![[Probe Against Ex-Principal of RG Kar Hospital] "My Concern is Simply Who Will Investigate, SIT or CBI ?": Calcutta HC to State](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-15-3.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
