THE Delhi high court on Wednesday (18) refused to grant bail to British Sikh Jagtar Singh Johal in several cases lodged against him under anti-terror law.
A bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed the appeals filed by Jagtar Singh Johal. These appeals challenged the trial court's decisions denying him bail in seven cases.
The cases are being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and relate to a series of alleged targeted killings and attempted murders in Punjab's Ludhiana and Jalandhar districts between 2016 and 2017.
The probe was transferred from the Punjab Police to the NIA after it was "identified" that the offences were part of a "transnational conspiracy that intended to destabilise the law-and-order situation" in the state, the court noted.
Opposing the pleas, the NIA claimed that Johal, who was arrested in November 2017, was "highly radicalised" and an "active member" of the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF).
This photo taken on November 24, 2017 shows Jagtar Singh Johal (C) being escorted to a court in Ludhiana in India's Punjab state. (Photo: Getty Images)It was alleged that being one of the main conspirators, the accused provided funds that were used for the procurement of arms and weapons by two shooters. The bench, also comprising Justice Amit Sharma, dismissed five appeals for being filed beyond the permissible period under the law. The appeals in the other two cases were dismissed by the bench on merit.
These two cases pertained to the alleged killing of Amit Sharma, the president of the Shri Hindu Takhat, in Ludhiana in January 2017, and the alleged attempt to kill in Jalandhar Jagdish Kumar Gagneja, the RSS vice-president in Punjab, in August 2016.
The court emphasised that terror activities with "trans-national links" fall in a "more serious and grave category" of cases and all offences covered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be treated equally.
The court held that at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant is "not an innocent person" and is "prima facie associated with the KLF", thus attracting the bar on grant of bail under the provisions of the UAPA.
"There are a total of eight cases in which the appellant has been named as an accused. Out of the eight cases, there have been deaths in four cases and grievous injuries in three cases. Active participation in anti-national activities, conspiracy to kill, that too for organisations such as the KLF would also have to be dealt with stringently and action would be liable to be taken against the persons who are involved in such unlawful, illegal and anti-national activities," the court said in the judgment.
"The evidence, prima facie, shows that various accused involved in these cases were from different countries, namely Italy, France and the UK. Some of the accused had links in other countries as well, including Canada, India and Thailand. The appellant, at this stage, cannot be considered to be a by-stander who merely acted as an innocent carrier or messenger. He was clearly aware that various persons were involved in the conspiracy."
The court further said while speedy trial is necessary as a constitutional prescription, in cases involving anti-national activities and terrorism on an international scale, long incarceration in itself ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when facts show involvement in such activities.
The court nonetheless asked the trial court to take urgent steps to expedite the trial and directed the NIA to lead the evidence of its witnesses, including the protected witnesses, on an early date.
The court also noted that there is a high possibility of the appellant, if released, extending threats to witnesses and again participating in activities of the KLF. It was also observed that Johal is a flight risk on account of his British passport and "international network".
"In respect of persons involved with such organisations, even a small role played by a particular individual can have a major impact and can cause loss of human life and threaten the safety and security of the public," the court said.
"In Crl.A. 569/2024 and 577/2024, on merits, for the reasons recorded above, the court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Thus, the said appeals are accordingly dismissed."
In its judgment, the court also observed that accused persons in terror cases with "trans-national links" could be working overtly and covertly and may even be linked through dark networks that are easily not traceable, leaving an "enormous challenge" to the investigating agencies.
(PTI)
