Nishan Singh released on bail after 3 years and 7 months in custody; Court questions admissibility of evidence under Indian Evidence Act.
In a significant development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Nishan Singh, who was arrested under charges relating to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Indian Penal Code, and Arms Act. The decision comes after the appellant had spent over three years and seven months in custody with minimal progress in his trial.
The bench comprising Justices Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur delivered the judgment on August 20, 2026. Nishan Singh was initially arrested based on allegations of being linked to banned organizations and involvement in activities intended to create unrest in Punjab. Despite the severity of the charges, the prosecution's case was primarily built on disclosure statements, whose admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act remains arguable.
The court took note of the prolonged period of custody and the fact that only one out of sixteen prosecution witnesses had been examined thus far. Moreover, significant doubts were raised regarding the evidence presented, particularly the lack of a financial or weapon trail linking the appellant to the alleged criminal acts. The bench also pointed out that another accused, Jagdeep Singh @ Jaggu Bhagwanpuria, had already been discharged, weakening the prosecution's case against Nishan Singh.
The High Court emphasized the need to adhere to legal principles, particularly the admissibility of evidence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judges highlighted that the State had failed to provide conclusive evidence linking Nishan Singh to the alleged gangsters, apart from the appellant's own confession, which is questionable in its admissibility.
The court, while granting bail, imposed conditions to ensure that Nishan Singh does not exert any influence or pose a threat to prosecution witnesses. The decision to grant bail, the court clarified, should not be seen as a comment on the merits of the case, which remains subject to trial.
This judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding individual rights against prolonged detention without conclusive evidence, especially in cases involving stringent laws like the UAPA. It also highlights the necessity for the prosecution to provide clear and admissible evidence in support of their charges to prevent undue hardships on the accused.
Bottom Line :
Regular bail granted to the appellant after considering the prolonged custody, lack of conclusive evidence linking him to alleged offenses, absence of criminal antecedents, and arguable issues regarding the admissibility of disclosure statements under the Indian Evidence Act.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 17, 18, 20; Arms Act, 1959 Section 25; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 120B; Indian Evidence Act, Sections 25, 27.
Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2967130
