The Delhi High Court has held that the mere fact that an accused is a foreign national or may pose a flight risk cannot, by itself, justify denying him bail under UAPA, particularly where the individual has undergone prolonged incarceration. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 864]

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while granting bail to British national Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been in custody for more than eight years in seven murder and UAPA cases.

The Court held that concerns regarding flight risk can be addressed through appropriate bail conditions and cannot, standing alone, become a ground to continue incarceration indefinitely.

“As regards the submission of the learned ASG that the appellant, being a foreign national, is a flight risk, we are of the opinion that the liberty of the appellant cannot be curtailed only on this ground. Instead, we shall impose conditions that should ensure that he does not become a flight risk,” the Court said.

The bench allowed the appeals filed by Johal challenging the trial court orders denying bail to him. The case against him alleged series of targeted killings during 2016-2017 in Ludhiana and Jalandhar Districts of Punjab.

It was NIA's case that the incidents in which Johal and other accused were involved were specifically for creating a law and order situation in Punjab. It further alleged that the accused persons were part of a conspiracy hatched by the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) of which Johal is also a member.

Granting relief to Johal, the Court examined the interplay between the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court noted that Johal had remained in custody for over eight years and that while 40 witnesses had been examined, as many as 123 witnesses were still to be examined, with around 63 of them being common witnesses.

As the Court noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, it was informed that even directions issued by the Supreme Court had not materially accelerated the progress of the trial.

Further, the Court took note of the fact that Johal has been acquitted by a trial court in Punjab in a UAPA case, which was not challenged by the NIA.

On this, the Bench observed that though the ASG may be correct in his submission that the order of acquittal cannot act as a res judicata, it said that the fact remained that on similar averments, Johal was being implicated in the cases in hand as a co-conspirator.

“Therefore, at least for enlarging the appellant on bail, this order shall have a strong persuasive value,” the Court said.

On NIA's concerns regarding witness intimidation, the Court observed that the allegations of threats, in the absence of material showing that such threats emanated from Johal or were made at his behest, did not persuade it to deny bail, particularly in view of the prolonged incarceration.

“Given the above factors, the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail in the above RC(s)…,” the Court said.

The Bench directed Johal to surrender of his passport, to use only one mobile phone, disclose his address and contact details, regularly appearaning before the trial court, and furnish an undertaking not to delay the proceedings.

The Court also clarified that violation of the bail conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Title: JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 864

Click here to read order