Delhi HC Grants Bail to Jagtar Singh Johal in Seven NIA Cases After Eight Years

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered the release of UK national Jagtar Singh Johal, also known as Jaggi, on bail in seven cases investigated by the National Investigation Agency, after noting that he had spent more than eight years in custody and that the trials were unlikely to conclude soon.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the trial court's orders refusing bail and directed his release on a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. The court imposed a series of conditions, including surrender of his passport — or an affidavit if he does not hold one — before the trial court.

Johal has been directed to use only one mobile phone or landline number during the trial, which must remain switched on, and to furnish his residential address, contact number and email address to the investigating officer and the trial court. He must give at least seven days' prior written notice before changing his residence or contact details.

The Bench barred him from contacting, influencing, threatening or communicating with any prosecution witness, protected witness, complainant or person acquainted with the facts of the case, and from tampering with evidence, electronic material, records, devices or documents. He has also been prohibited from making public statements on the merits of the cases, evidence, witnesses or pending trials, and from participating in any activity that could prejudice public order or the integrity of the trial.

In a specific condition on social media, the court directed him not to join any WhatsApp group or other platform where "anti-national material" is uploaded, circulated or propagated, and not to upload, share or circulate such material. He must file an undertaking to this effect.

Johal has been directed to report to the investigating officer once every fortnight, or at intervals later fixed by the trial court, and to appear before the trial court on every hearing date unless exempted. He must cooperate with the trial and not engage in conduct that delays proceedings. The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is breached.

The appeals were heard together as the allegations and submissions were similar, involving provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Arms Act. The court noted that although charges had been framed, only 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined, with 123 still to be examined, and that about 63 witnesses were common to the cases. Despite Supreme Court directions in May 2025, December 2025 and May 2026, the trial pace had not substantially improved and protected witnesses' statements had not been recorded.

The Bench examined the impact of prolonged incarceration on Johal's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, in the context of restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and subsequent decisions, noting that statutory restrictions do not completely exclude constitutional courts' jurisdiction to grant bail where continued incarceration raises concerns under Part III of the Constitution.

At the same time, the court observed that delay cannot be treated as an automatic ground for bail in every UAPA case, and that such an assessment must consider the nature of allegations, stage of proceedings, realistic trajectory of the trial, causes of delay, the accused's role, prima facie material, safeguards and risks of release. It also noted that the Supreme Court has referred the interplay between Article 21 and Section 43D(5) to a larger Bench in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, but said the reference did not prevent it from deciding the case on binding law.

The court considered the Punjab and Haryana High Court's March 2022 bail order in a similar case, when Johal had undergone about five years in custody, and a March 4, 2025 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, acquitting him in a similar case — an acquittal that has attained finality and was not challenged. Although the Moga acquittal cannot operate as res judicata, the court held it had "strong persuasive value" for the limited purpose of the bail plea, since he was being implicated as a co-conspirator on similar averments.

The NIA had opposed bail, arguing that Johal was a foreign national and a flight risk, and that some witnesses had complained of threats. The court held that his liberty could not be curtailed merely because he was a foreign national and that appropriate conditions could address flight risk concerns.