Delhi High Court grants bail to UK national Jagtar Singh Johal after eight years in jail
The Delhi High Court has directed the release of UK national Jagtar Singh Johal, also known as Jaggi, on bail in seven separate cases. These cases are currently being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The decision comes after the court observed that Johal has been held in custody for more than eight years and that the ongoing trials are unlikely to reach a conclusion in the near future.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja made this ruling while setting aside previous orders from a trial court. The lower court had previously refused bail to Johal. While the court has granted him relief, it has imposed a series of very strict conditions to ensure he complies with the law and does not interfere with the judicial process.
Strict conditions imposed on Johal's release
To secure his release, the High Court has mandated that Johal execute a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh. This must be accompanied by two sureties of the same amount, both of which must satisfy the requirements of the trial court. One of the primary conditions is that he must surrender his passport to the trial court immediately. If he does not possess a passport, he is required to file a formal affidavit stating so.
The court has also placed heavy restrictions on his communication and movements. Johal is permitted to use only one mobile phone or one landline number during the duration of the trial, and this number must remain switched on at all times. He is required to provide his residential address, contact number, and email address to both the Investigating Officer and the trial court. Furthermore, he cannot change his place of residence or his contact details without providing at least seven days of prior written notice to both the investigators and the court.
To ensure he remains accountable, the court has ordered the following:
He must report to the concerned Investigating Officer once every fortnight.
He must appear before the trial court on every scheduled hearing date unless specifically exempted.
He is prohibited from engaging in any conduct that could delay the trial proceedings.
He must furnish an undertaking regarding his social media conduct to the trial court.
Restrictions on social media and witness contact
The High Court has been very specific regarding Johal's interactions with the public and the legal process. He is strictly prohibited from contacting, influencing, threatening, or communicating with any prosecution witness, protected witness, complainant, or any person who is acquainted with the facts of the cases. Additionally, he is barred from tampering with any evidence, which includes electronic material, records, devices, or documents related to the investigations.
There are also significant limitations on his public presence. The Bench directed that Johal shall not make any public statements regarding the merits of the cases, the evidence, the witnesses, or the pending trials. This restriction applies to all forms of communication, including print media, electronic media, and social media platforms. He is also forbidden from participating in any activity that might prejudice the integrity of the trial or affect public order.
Regarding digital activity, the court issued a specific warning about social media platforms. Johal is not allowed to join any WhatsApp groups or other social media platforms where "anti-national material" is being uploaded, circulated, or propagated. He is also prohibited from uploading, sharing, disseminating, or circulating such material himself. The court made it clear that if any of these bail conditions are breached, the prosecution is free to seek the cancellation of his bail through the appropriate legal channels.
Legal reasoning and trial delays
The Bench arrived at this decision while reviewing seven criminal appeals filed by Johal. These appeals challenged orders from the Additional Sessions Judge-03 in New Delhi. The cases involve various allegations under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Because the allegations and legal submissions across these cases were similar, the High Court decided to consider all seven appeals together.
The court highlighted the significant delay in the judicial process. Although charges had been framed, only 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. A massive number of witnesses, totaling 123, are still left to be examined. While approximately 63 of these witnesses are common to the different cases, the court concluded that the trials are certainly not likely to conclude any time soon. The Bench even noted that despite several directions from the Supreme Court issued on May 20, 2025, December 11, 2025, and May 8, 2026, the pace of the trial had not improved, and the statements of protected witnesses remained unrecorded.
Constitutional rights and previous legal precedents
In its judgment, the High Court examined how prolonged incarceration affects an individual's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially when dealing with the strict restrictions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The Bench referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which deals with the right to a speedy trial and long-term detention in UAPA cases. The court noted that while Section 43D(5) imposes statutory restrictions, it does not entirely strip constitutional courts of their power to grant bail if continued imprisonment violates constitutional protections.
However, the court cautioned that delay should not be viewed as an automatic reason for bail in every UAPA case. It emphasized that such decisions must be contextual, looking at the nature of the allegations, the stage of the trial, the causes of the delay, and the potential risks of release. The Bench also acknowledged that the Supreme Court has referred the complex relationship between Article 21 and Section 43D(5) to a larger Bench in the case of Tasleem Ahmed v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, but noted this did not stop the High Court from deciding the current case based on existing law.
The court also looked at historical context. In March 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted Johal regular bail in a similar case after he had served five years in custody. Furthermore, the Bench noted a March 4, 2025, judgment from the Additional Sessions Judge in Moga, Punjab, where Johal was acquitted in a case involving similar allegations. Although that acquittal did not act as res judicata for these proceedings, the court found it had strong persuasive value because Johal was being implicated as a co-conspirator based on similar claims.
NIA opposition and court findings
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) strongly opposed the bail application. The agency argued that because Johal is a foreign national, he poses a significant flight risk. They also claimed that some witnesses had complained of being threatened and suggested that his release could harm the progress of the trial. The NIA maintained that his liberty should be restricted given the seriousness of the charges.
The High Court addressed these concerns directly. It ruled that a person's liberty cannot be taken away simply because they are a foreign national, noting that the stringent conditions imposed would mitigate the risk of him fleeing. Regarding the allegations of witness intimidation, the Bench observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any documentation proving that such threats were actually coming from Johal or being directed by him. Consequently, the court found the trial court's previous refusal of bail to be unsustainable and set those orders aside.