Chandigarh, Sept. 16 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday granted bail to an accused booked under an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case, observing that despite being in custody for more than 5.6 years, only one out of 40 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The bench of justice Deepak Sibal and justice Lapita Banerji made it clear that the case was marred by prolonged delay. The bench observed that no effort has been made to interrogate the main accused serving a sentence in another case in Tihar Jail, Delhi. The main co-accused in the present FIR, registered in February 2020, was yet to be arrested, despite the challan having been filed on March 1, 2021, the court said. "No reasonable explanation has been provided as to why the main co-accused has not been arrested in the present case and why custodial interrogation has not been done till date," the Bench asserted. The case in hand relates to an accused, Ashish Kumar, who was booked under UAPA for allegedly supplying illegal arms to co-accused and his associates for committing offences such as murders, dacoities, loot, and extortion. "From perusal of the affidavit filed on the state's behalf, it transpired that the appellant had been apprehended only on the basis of secret information given by one of the police officials. The only evidence that has been brought on record at this stage is the statements made by the chance witnesses," the bench said. The court added "link evidence" had not been established to connect the appellant to the commission of any crime, "more so to a crime/offence showing his involvement under the UAPA". Apart from the statements of chance witnesses, the State counsel was unable to show further evidence collected against the appellant connecting to an offence under the UAPA," the court said. The case was registered in Mohali on February 5, 2020. The appellant Ashish had challenged the January 8, 2024, orders passed by the additional sessions judge, Mohali, whereby his bail application was dismissed. The court added that trial progress remained negligible, adding that even after charges were framed under the provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in April last year. The court added that the state counsel was also unable to provide a reasonable estimate of the time required for the trial's completion. As such, the court was "left with no other option but to release the appellant on bail"....