New Delhi, Sep 18 — The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to UK national Jagtar Singh Johal alias Jaggi in seven cases arising out of alleged terror-related conspiracies in Punjab, holding that his continued incarceration of more than eight years, coupled with the slow progress of the trial, warranted his release on bail.
A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja set aside the orders passed by the trial court and directed Johal's release on bail in all seven cases, subject to stringent conditions, including surrender of his passport, regular appearance before the trial court and restrictions on contacting witnesses or making public statements about the pending trial.
Johal has been in custody since November 4, 2017 and is facing charges under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act in cases relating to alleged conspiracies involving targeted killings and terrorist activities in Punjab.
According to the chargesheet in one of the cases, Johal allegedly travelled from the UK to France to deliver GBP 3,000 to Harminder Singh alias Mintoo, with the prosecution claiming that a part of the money was subsequently given to another accused to motivate him to join the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF).
The Delhi High Court recorded that the allegations against Johal in the seven cases were substantially similar and therefore considered his appeals through a common judgment.
The appeals had earlier been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in September 2024. Johal challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, which in July 2026 set aside the order and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, without going into the question of limitation.
In its latest order, the High Court said that more than eight years had been spent in custody, while only 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined and another 123 witnesses were yet to be examined.
"Though the charges stand framed against the appellant in the aforesaid RCs, only 40 witnesses have so far been examined and we are informed that there are another 123 witnesses whose testimony is yet to be recorded," the Justice Chawla-led Bench said.
It further observed that around 63 witnesses were common to the different cases and, despite this, the trial was "certainly not likely to conclude any time soon".
It also took note of the fact that despite repeated directions issued by the Supreme Court for expediting the trial, the proceedings had not picked up sufficiently and even the evidence of protected witnesses had not been recorded.
The High Court rejected the NIA's contention that Johal's status as a foreign national, and the possibility of his being a flight risk, by itself justified continued detention.
"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 judgment said.
It also declined to deny bail on the ground that some witnesses had complained of threats, observing that no material had been placed before it to show that such threats were emanating from Johal or at his behest.
The Delhi High Court directed Johal to furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh with two sureties of the like amount and surrender his passport, if any.
Among other conditions, he has been directed to use only one mobile phone or landline number, keep it switched on, furnish his residential and contact details to the Investigating Officer and trial court, and report to the Investigating Officer once every fortnight or as directed by the trial court.
He has also been barred from directly or indirectly contacting, influencing or threatening any prosecution or protected witness and from tampering with evidence.
The High Court further directed him not to make any public statement through print, electronic or social media concerning the merits of the case, evidence, witnesses or pending trial.
Johal has also been restrained from joining WhatsApp groups or other social media platforms where "anti-national material" is uploaded, circulated or propagated, and from uploading, sharing, disseminating or circulating such material.
The High Court made it clear that any breach of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate court.