Khushalbir Singh @ Chittu v. State Of Punjab
!
" "#
%&'( #$"--#1 &)*+*',-."-"--.
22&
,% / &+2',3&,% %+
/
/ 1 !
1
+ 3 444
$ .
$
!
! "# $
!
!
# % !!& '
(
($ )
! * + , " + $( 5
6
, !
3 + ! # #" 6 78 ! # , 0 9
- .
/,0 .
! 9 ) )
"-" # : ( $( (
+ 9 $
9 5 !
+ *
($ '
'
+ +. + "
: ( ( (. 9 2 !
;2
+ ( +$
$+
. <
+ $ 7=
+$= ( !
: ( $ 8 $ + #>$ .
+ ,.
. (8 . $.
(8
$ + +
3
9? ( !
;) ( (
. . )
(( + @
(
, : ( 9! +
( A .
"4" .
9 2 !
;2 . .
+ . .
.
9 : 9
$ + .
+$ 9 5 !
+ . 9 .
7=
. 8+ $ + $
$ = $ : 9!
( $
(+
( + +
$ .. . ( $@ . +
..
B@
$ B. @ $( . . / ! $ .
5 "C# , # !
: $ .
$ 0/ ? 8 +
.
9
= $ .
. ( *
(
"#" ( (
( + $ $ ( + ($
) $
++ $ $(
D .
( ' (
+ $
.
.
+ $ $ '
$+
( . (
.
( $ . # .
+ + 9 (
+ ( . ( $
7=
. + .
( $ + $ "
:
( . 8
:
+++ $@
$( 9 + +. .
+ @
8 . .
(
"$" , E ( .
( ( ( + .
.
.
. (
. ( ( ( + ) .
.
( (
@
( ($ ( 8 (
.
+( . ( $. .
5 (
( $( ( (
(
.
( + @
/ '
+ 3
( ' +. (
($ $( ( + #>$
+ $
(8
'
+ (
( )
"." :
+ A<(!
+)
) /
:
+
$
.
. 3 + ( +
( # + $ (
3 + .
+ $ +
$ ( 0, .
.$(8 . .
.
$ ( + .
9 ( + $ . ( + + (
$ . C#
( . .
"
(
+ $ ( ($A<(!
+)
! "# $%$& ' (% .
3 + ) *
+, # A<( !
+ )
(
(
( .
+
)
3 + 9
"5" "XXXX........385. The Court remains mindful that the alleged acts culminated in serious violence yet, the gravity of the incident cannot be the sole criterion to perpetuate detention when the individual's attributed role is operational rather than directive. The prosecution has not demonstrated that Shadab's custodial presence is required for ongoing investigation or that further evidence is contingent upon his continued incarceration. In the absence of such necessity, indefinite pre-trial detention would assume a punitive character inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of personal liberty under Article 21, particularly where the alleged conduct is neither shown to be ongoing nor presently repeatable in a manner jeopardising the proceedings.
386. The Court further notes that the documentary and electronic evidence forming the backbone of the prosecution case has already been secured and subjected to forensic processes, and no submission has been advanced suggesting that Shadab's custodial presence is indispensable for recovery of additional material. The absence of any pending investigative step requiring his confrontation or custodial interrogation weighs significantly against continued deprivation of liberty, for pre-trial detention cannot be justified merely to await the vicissitudes of trial when the evidentiary record is substantially crystallised.
387. Moreover, while the prosecution advances the thesis of layered participation culminating in coordinated disruptions across multiple sites, it is incumbent upon the Court to maintain proportionality between the attributed layer of involvement and the nature of liberty restriction imposed. Insofar as Shadab is alleged to have functioned at an executory tier without demonstrated autonomy over escalation or violence, extending pre-trial detention would risk conflating operational participation with strategic authorship, contrary to the requirement that liberty be curtailed only upon individualised and contemporaneous necessity.
388. The Court is also persuaded that calibrated conditions can adequately address the State's concerns regarding potential interference with the administration of justice. In the absence of material demonstrating that measures would be insufficient, continued incarceration cannot be sustained.
389. In these circumstances and bearing in mind that the constitutional presumption favours liberty unless its curtailment is demonstrably necessary for legitimate and current purposes of investigation or trial, the Court finds no compelling grounds to justify the further confinement of Shadab Ahmad. The differentiated hierarchy of roles articulated by the prosecution underscores that his alleged conduct, while forming part of the evidentiary matrix for trial, does not presently establish a continuing threat warranting custodial restraint. Subject to strict compliance with conditions imposed by the Court, enlargement on bail remains the proportionate course.......XXXX.......
FINAL CONCLUSION AND OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
"6"
426. The present batch of appeals has required the Court to engage with questions that lie at the intersection of personal liberty and collective security. The guarantee of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is of foundational importance, and no constitutional court can be unmindful of the gravity of restraining liberty before guilt is adjudicated. At the same time, the Constitution does not conceive liberty in isolation. The security of the community, the integrity of the trial process, and the preservation of public order are equally legitimate constitutional concerns. When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a special statute, the Court is required to undertake a difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither liberty nor security admits of absolutism.
427. While undertaking this exercise, the Court cannot proceed on any consideration except restricting the contours of inquiry confining to law. Where Parliament has prescribed a distinct statutory threshold for the grant of bail, and where the prosecution places prima facie material suggesting organised and deliberate activity affecting public order and security of the Nation, the Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such material merely because incarceration is prolonged or liberty is invoked in the abstract. Equally, where continued detention is not shown to be necessary to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, the Court must not hesitate to restore liberty, subject to stringent conditions that safeguard the larger public interest.
428. The position of law that emerges may be stated with clarity. The right to personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 is of seminal importance, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern. At the same time, where Parliament has, in the context of a special statute, conditioned the grant of bail upon the satisfaction of a defined statutory threshold, a constitutional court cannot treat such restraint as avoidable. Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, represents a legislative judgment that offences alleged to implicate the security of the State warrant a distinct bail regime.
The constitutional role of the Court, therefore, is neither to mechanically enforce the statutory embargo nor to neutralise it by invocation of liberty as straight-jacket formula, but to apply it with disciplined scrutiny. Where the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, the statutory restraint must ordinarily operate. Where it does not, liberty must prevail. Article 21 thus commands the manner of application of the statute; it does not dissolve the statutory condition itself.
429. It is in this constitutional and statutory framework that the individual appeals have been examined based on facts obtained. The Court has consciously avoided a collective or uniform approach. Each appellant has been assessed on the basis of the role attributed, the nature of material relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings, strictly within the limited compass of adjudication for grant of bail.....XXXX"
"7" 6
+
+ $
+ , %&
$
,99, !
2$ /
E'7 D C F7! D ( E