UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Painting Pro-Khalistan Slogans On Govt Building

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of writing pro-Khalistan slogans and hoisting a flag associated with the banned outfit “Sikh for Justice” on a government building, in a case registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 268]

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur noted, "the role attributed to the appellant, the alleged recovery of empty paint cans as well as the period of custody undergone by him and noticing that the investigation in the present case has already been completed and also considering the fact that the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail, we deem it appropriate to allow the present appeal and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond..."

The appellant, Jugraj Singh, had challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated March 17, 2026, dismissing his bail plea in an FIR registered at Police Station Dharamgarh, Sangrur, under Sections 152 and 61(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 153 and 120-B IPC) and Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA.

According to the prosecution, slogans referring to Khalistan were found painted on the wall of an electricity grid at village Satauj, along with a yellow flag bearing “Deg Teg Fateh,” “Khanda,” and the words “Khalistan Jindabad.”

FIR alleged the act was connected to content circulated by Gurpatwant Singh Pannu of Sikh for Justice (SFJ). Investigation led to the arrest of the appellant, who was already in custody in another case. He reportedly disclosed that he had been approached by a co-inmate identified as Amritpal Singh, who claimed to work for pro-Khalistan causes and offered payment for painting such slogans. The appellant allegedly received instructions, a flag, and paint cans from associates, carried out the act with a co-accused, and later sought payment for the work.

Counsel for the appellant argued that his client had been in custody for over a year and five months, that the investigation stood completed, and that no recovery beyond empty paint cans had been made from him. It was further submitted that two co-accused, one who allegedly supplied the flag and paint cans, and another who allegedly transferred money, had already been granted regular bail by coordinate benches of the High Court.

Counsel contended that merely painting slogans, without more, amounted at best to defilement of public property and did not attract the rigours of the UAPA.

The State opposed bail, pointing to the appellant's antecedents and his alleged links with the banned outfit, though it did not dispute the period of custody or the completion of investigation.

Taking into account the limited role attributed to the appellant, the nature of the recovery, the period already undergone in custody, completion of investigation, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused, the Bench held it appropriate to extend the concession of bail. 

Directing the appellant not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses, the Court allowed rate plea.

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Title: JUGRAJ SINGH @ SONY v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to read order