CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on : 03.11.2025

Pronounced on : 17.11.2025

CRA-D No. 1396 of 2023 (O&M)

1. Bhola Singh …..Appellant

versus

State of Punjab …..Respondent

CRA-D No. 1586 of 2023 (O&M)

2. Baljit Singh @ Mahna ….Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab …. .Respondent

CRA-D No. 695 of 2024 (O&M)

3. Harjinder Singh @ Raju …..Appellant

versus

State of Punjab …..Respon dent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI

Present : Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate,

Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate;

Ms. Reema, Advocate, for the appellant in

CRA-D No. 1396 of 2023.

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the appellant in

CRA D No. 1586 of 2023.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate,

for the appellant in CRA D No. 695 of 2024.

Mr. Siddharth Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

****

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 2

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

By way of this common order, all these three appeals are disposed

of as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. Criminal Appeals No. 1586 of 2023 is preferred by the appellant-

Baljit Singh @ Mahna challenging the order dated 21.09.2023 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Special Court, Faridkot. Appeal Nos. 1396 of 2023 and 695 of 2024

have been filed by the appellants, namely Bhola Singh and Harjinder Singh @

Raju against the two separate impugned orders of the same date i.e.

29.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court,

Faridkot.

3. The above noted orders dismissing the applications of these

appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) are rendered in case arising

out of FIR No. 228 dated 10.11.2022 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-

B, 201, 473, 411 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 25 of the

Arms Act and under Sections 16,18,20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAPA Act’), registered at Police Station

City Kotakpura.

4. Briefly stated, the facts germane to the present appeals are as

follow:-

a) On 10.11.2022, at about 07.15 P.M. murder of Pardeep Singh

Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, husband of complainant Simran, took place and the

above referred FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of his

wife/complainant Simran. No person was named by complainant Simran in her

statement dated 10.11.2022 recorded by Sub Inspector Pritam Singh.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 3

b) The statement of Simran wife of deceased Pardeep Singh Kataria

Raju Dodhi, is in Punjabi script and when translated to English, it makes the

following reading:-

         “I  would  like  to  state  that  I  am  resident  of  above 

noted address and am running a boutique. My husband  Pardeep 

Singh runs a milk Dairy and grocery shop at Hari Nau Kotkapura 

and  my  boutique  is  adjoining  to  our  Dairy/shop.  We  have  three 

children  and  our  entire  family  has  taken  "Naam"  of  Dera  Sacha 

Saudha, Sirsa Wala. A police security official has been provided by 

the administration to my husband. Today when I and my husband 

Pardeep Singh along with his security official Hakam Singh were 

present at our grocery shop at Hari Nau Road Kotkapura then at 

about  7:15  AM,  two  unknown  youngmen  who  had  parked  their 

motorcycle  in  the  street  came  into  our  shop  on  the  pretext  of 

purchasing some material. Another four more unknown youngmen 

had  also  stopped  their  two  motorcycles  in  the  street  at  some 

distance  ahead  of  our  shop  and  came  outside  our  shop.  In  the 

meantime, the two youngmen who were already into our shop took 

out  pistols  from  their  respective  Dabs  and  fired   at  my  husband 

Pardeep Singh, who got injured. Our security official- Hakam Singh 

present   in  the  shop    tried  to  save  my  husband  with official 

weapon but the assailants also fired upon him hitting his left leg 

and  thereafter  the  four  persons  standing  outside  the  shop  also 

fired  with  their  respective  weapons,  due  to  which  Amar  Singh              

Ex-M.C. resident of Kotkapura who is our neighbor got injured. The  

youngmen  while  firing  left  one  motorcycle  at  the  spot  and  ran 

away with their respective weapons on their second motorcycle. In 

the  mean  time  our  relative  Hardeep  Singh  Insan  son  of  shri 

Devinder  Kumar   resident  of  Tota,  District  Moga  who had  come 

yesterday  to  meet  us  also  reached  there  and  had  also  seen  the 

said incident. The public gathered there who arranged vehicle and 

took these three injured persons to Civil Hospital Kotkapura where 

due to serious condition of my husband Pardeep Singh, and of his 

security  official,  they  were  taken  to  Medical  College  Faridkot, 

where  my  husband  died  during  treatment.  Our  security  official 

Hakam  Singh  and  neighbour  M.C.  Hakam  Singh  are  under 

treatment. I and my relative Hardeep Singh can identify the above 

said  assailants  if  they  appear  before  me.  The  above  said  six 

unknown persons have committed  the murder of my husband  by 

shooting him and caused injuries to security official Hakam Singh 

and M.C. Amar Singh. There is deep conspiracy behind the murder 

of my husband. The big reason behind this incident is also that the 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 4

previous  governments  have  indulged  into  petty  politics  for  their 

vote bank and innocent Dera Premis have been made accused in 

the  pending  cases  of  sacrilege  pertaining  to  Guru  Granth  Sahib 

and other cases and have given religious colour to such incidents. 

We Dera Premis are respecting all the religious and are serving the 

society  without  any  aim  but  the  government,  while  misusing 

media,  have  been defaming  us  in  the  society  due  to  which  such, 

anti-social elements got a chance and they have committed above 

said incident. Other persons may be involved in this case. Justice 

be  provided  to  me  by  taking  action  against  them.  I  have  got 

recorded  my  statement  in  the  presence  of  my  relative  Hardeep 

Singh, which is correct.”

(c) After registration of FIR, inquest report with respect to the dead

body of Pardeep Singh Kataria alias Raju Dodhi son of Jaspal Singh @ Sadhu

Singh, was prepared. Post mortem examination of the dead body was got

conducted and the post mortem proceedings were also videographed by the

Board of Doctors under the chairmanship of Dr. Ravdeep Singh and by Dr.

Atul and Dr. Arun, as members. The dead body was handed over to the legal

heirs of deceased. On the basis of application moved by the family of deceased

regarding donation of eyes, the dead body was handed over to Dr. Supreet for

further proceedings where one part of eye was retrieved and the dead body was

again subjected to post mortem examination by the Board of Doctors. The

proceedings of post mortem were video-graphed and dead body was handed

over to legal heirs of deceased.  

(d) The clothes of the deceased duly sealed with seal, post mortem

report and videography recording of the post mortem proceedings was also

obtained in the memory card from the Doctor by SI Pritam Singh. SI Pritam

Singh inspected the spot, prepared site plan and lifted the empty cartridges. He

also lifted blood with cotton swabs from the shop of deceased as well as from

the adjoining shop and from the shop of Amar Singh. Plain soil was also lifted.

One iron lock having mark of bullet was also lifted from the spot and were

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 5

separately parceled, sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal and taken

in police possession.

(e) Motor cycle with broken rear number plate and having number

HR14-A-4083 on the front number plate was also taken into possession from

the street near the shop of deceased.

(f) During the course of investigation, SI Pritam Singh received

information that two unclaimed motor cycles are parked near the truck union,

Bajakhana and these can be connected with the incident of this case. One

motor cycle make Hero Splendor without number and another motor cycle of

Hero Honda Super Spleder without number and whose chassis number could

not be decipherable, black coloured with front light part stained with were

taken into possession by SI Pritam Singh. Samples of blood lifted from the

motor cycle were also sealed by SI Pritam Singh and other proceedings were

conducted.

(g) On 12.11.2024, Inspector Lachhman Singh, SHO o f Police

Station, City South Moga, telephonically informed SI Pritam Singh that during

investigation in case FIR No. 235 dated 04.11.2022 under Sections 387, 506

read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City South

Moga, Harjinder Singh @ Raju son of Nirmal Singh @ Nimma, resident of

Manavan Police Station Kot Ise Kha District Moga, after seeing the

photographs of murder of deceased of this case, identified the assailants as

Manpreet Singh and Bhupinder Singh and also informed that murder was

committed at the instance of Goldi Brar who resides abroad and he was in

contact with Goldi Brar and Goldi Brar informed him about the known persons

of the area and he gave the contact numbers of Manpreet Singh @ Mani and

Bhupinder Singh. On the basis of investigation and other secret enquiry,

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 6

Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Bhupinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Harjinder Singh

@ Raju, Nirmal Singh @ Nimma and Satinderjit Singh @ Goldi Brar were

nominated as accused in this case.

(h) During investigation of FIR No. 323 dated 23.10.2022 under

Section 25 of the Arms Act, Special Cell, Delhi, by SI Ankur Sojwal, accused

Jatinder Singh @ Jeetu son of Kashmiri, resident of Banyani Police Station

Klasaur, District Rohtak, Mohit Chauhan son of Satbir, resident of Ward No.3,

village Dhanana, District Bhiwani, Haryana and Manish Nand Lal @ Goli son

of Deepak Kumar, resident of Panna Chopan Village Boar, District Rohtak

admitted their involvement in the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju

Dodhi and SI Ankur Sojwal informed about it telephonically to the police of

Police Station Kotakpura on 12.11.2022 and these accused were nominated in

this case.

(i) CCTV footages of the areas around the commission of offence

were checked and taken into possession vide separate DVB by SI Pritam

Singh.

(j) On 14.11.2022, Harjinder Singh @ Raju was arrested in this case

after obtaining his transit warrant from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga.

(k) On 17.11.2022, Juveniles (M.C. and M.A.) (juveniles identity

withheld) were taken in protective custody and were lodged in Juvenile Home,

Faridkot. Juveniles were questioned with the permission of the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot and they admitted their

involvement in the commission of offence. They also suffered their disclosure

statements that after murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, Baljit

Singh @ Mana son of Gurmeet Singh assisted them to escape and accused

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 7

Baljit Singh @ Mana was nominated as accused vide Rapat No.

35/17.11.2022.

(l) On 17.11.2022, accused Baljit Singh @ Mana was arrested in

this case. Rs. 13,000/- was recovered during personal search of accused

Baljit Singh @ Mana. On the same day, accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani

and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi were arrested and Rs. 7000/- were recovered

during personal search of accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi.

(m) Accused Bhola Singh and Vikcy Chauhan were nominated vide

Rapat No. 70 dated 18.11.2022 on the basis of disclosure statement of accused

Manpreet Singh @ Mani and accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi.

(n) On 19.11.2022, on the basis of disclosure statement and

identification of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani, one pistol 9 MM and 4

live cartridges and on the basis of disclosure statement and identification of

co-accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi, one pistol .30 bore pistol and 3 live

cartridges and one white cap were got recovered.

(o) On 19.11.2022, accused Vicky Chauhan son of Balwinder Singh

was arrested and on the basis of his interrogation and report of indulgence,

accused Swaran Singh @ Sunny son of Amrik Singh was nominated in this

case vide DDR No. 54 dated 19.11.2022. Accused Swaran Singh @ Sunny

was also arrested on 19.11.2022 and one Car Ritz bearing registration No.

PB10DZ-5283 alongwith registration certificate was got recovered which was

used to ferry the accused to a safe place after commission of offence.

(p) Accused Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda son of Mahbub Khan,

resident of Rohtak was nominated in this case vide Rapat No. 36 of

20.11.2022 as a shooter (who actually fired shots) on the basis of interrogation

of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Money and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 8

(q) Co-accused Pawandeep Singh @ Pavna was also nominated vide

Rapat No. 58 dated 21.11.2022 on the basis of interrogation of co-accused

Swaran Singh @ Sunny, Manpreet Singh @ Mony and Bhupinder Singh @

Goldi, who confessed that before murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju

Dodhi, assailants stayed at Avtar Palace, Jaito, where Pawandeep @ Pavna son

of Harpreet Singh and another person came in Swift car and handed over 100

cartridges of 9.mm and .30 bores to Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Bhupinder

Singh @ Goldi, who kept 9 mm and 30 bore 100 cartridges and returned 32

bore cartridges to Pawandeep Singh @ Pavna and only Pawandeep knew about

the same.

(r) On 22.11.2022, accused Bhola Singh was arrested on the basis

of production warrant as he was in custody in modern Jail, Faridkot. On

the same day, co-accused Pawandeep @ Pavna was arrested and on the basis

of disclosure statement of co-accused Pawandeep @ Pavna, co-accused

Harpreet Singh @ Bhau son of Sukhpal Singh, resident of village Dhapai,

District Faridkot was nominated vide Rapat No. 68 dated 22.11.2022.

(s) During investigation of this case, on 23.11.2022 accused Bhola

Singh confessed his involvement in the commission of offence and vide

Rapat No. 80 dated 23.11.2022, offences punishable under Sections 16, 18

and 20 of UAPA Act was added.

(t) On 26.11.2022, co-accused Pawandeep @ Pavna as per his

statement got recovered 50 cartridges of 32 bore pistol to the police

(u) On 02.12.2022 co-accused Ramzan Khan @ Raj Hoo da was

produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot from Central

Jail, Jaipur on the basis of production warrant since he was lodged in the said

jail in connection with FIR No. 473 dated 20.11.2022 under Sections 307, 332,

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 9

353, 216, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms

Act.

(v) On 09.12.2022, co-accused Jitender @ Jitu was produced in the

Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate of Delhi Police on the basis of his

production warrant. On the basis of disclosure statement and identification of

co-accused Jitender Singh @ Jeetu, one Scooter No. HR02-AM-3585 used in

the commission of offence was got recovered on 14.12.2022. On the basis of

information given by accused Jitender Singh @ Jeetu and other investigation,

co-accused Parvinder Singh @ Kala and Manpreet Singh @ Lata were

nominated as accused vide DDR Rapat No. 61 dated 15.12.2022.

(w) On 18.12.2022, above named accused Parvinder Singh @ Kala

and Manpreet Singh @ Lata were arrested and during investigation it was

found that accused Parvinder Singh @ Kala used his Car No. PB11-CR-5757

to facilitate escape of the accused till Bajakhana after commission of the

offence by them. During investigation, both the above named accused also

suffered their disclosure statements on 20.12.2022 that after offence of murder

of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi on 10.11.2022, they took the

assailants Jitender Singh @ Jeetu and his companions in Car No. PB-11-CR-

5757 towards the fields of Manpreet Singh @ Lata. Jitender Singh @ Jeetu

had fired arm injury on his foot and shoes/socks and the cotton used to clean

the injury of Jitender Singh @ Jeetu, cover of pillow, coat & tie of companions

of Jitender Singh @ Jeetu can be got recovered by him and the same were got

recovered.

(x) The case property collected during the course of investigation was

deposited with MHC. The ownership of vehicles recovered during

investigation was got verified from the concerned registration authorities. The

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 10

incriminating substance was deposited with FSL and FSL reports were

obtained.

(y) After completion of investigation, challan against the accused

persons, namely (i) Harjinder Singh @ Raju (ii) Baljeet Singh @ Mana (iii)

Manpreet Singh @ Mani (iv) Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy (v) Vicky Chauhan

(vi) Swaran Singh @ Sunny (vii) Bhola Singh (viii) Pawandeep Singh alia

Pavna (ix) Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda (x) Jatinder @ Jeetu (xi) Parwinder

Singh @ Kala (xii) Manpreet Singh @ Lata whereas challan against co-

juvenile, namely, (MN) was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board

whereas 2

nd

Juvenile, namely, (MC) was found to be adult as his date of birth

was 14.07.2023. Offence punishable under section 201 IPC was also invoked

against co-accused (MC) (who was earlier declared as juvenile) and co-

accused juvenile (MC), Jitender @ Jeetu and Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda

because they did not got recovered the weapons used in the commission of

offence.

5. Accused Satinder Jit @ Goldy Brar and Harman Singh could not

be arrested. Challan against two juveniles was presented before the Juvenile

Justice Board.

6. Vide order dated 28.11.2023, accused, namely, Harjinder Singh

@ Raju, Baljit Singh @ Mana, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Bhupinder Singh @

Goldy, Vicky Chauhan, Swaran Singh @ Sunny, Bhola Singh, Pawandeep

Singh @ Pavna, Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda, Jatinder Singh @ Jeetu,

Parwinder Singh @ Kala, Manpreet Singh @ Lata and Harpreet Singh Bhau

were charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

16,18,20 of UAPA Act and under sections 148 IPC, 302 IPC read with section

120-B IPC, 307 read with section 120-B IPC201 read with section 120-B IPC,

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 11

under section 212 read with section 120-B IPC, under section 473 read with

section 120-B IPC, 411 IPC, 25 of the Arms Act, to which they all did not

plead guilty and claimed trial.

7. Learned trial Court dismissed the regular bail application of

accused Bhola Singh on the ground that while Bhola Singh was in custody,

accused Manpreet Singh @ Money used to visit to meet him in jail frequently

and followed him on the dates fixed for hearing. In jail Bhola Singh got

interacted with one Goldy Brar to commit murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @

Raju Dodhi, a Dera Premi of Dera Sachha Sauda and then accused Goldy Brar,

who resides abroad, deputed Bhola Singh for the purpose of recce and for

supply of arms and ammunitions to local persons of Faridkot. Bhola Singh in-

connivance with his brother-in-law Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Bhupinder

Singh @ Goldy planned to proceed further for committing the said murder.

The murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi was committed on

10.11.2022 and whole plan for commission of offence was made after

consultation with various persons/miscreants, residing in India and abroad.

Considering the nature of the allegations and gravity of the offences and the

fact that accused was involved in the commission of offence under UAPA, the

bail application of accused Bhola Singh was dismissed on 29.08.2023 by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Faridkot.

8. On similar grounds, the bail application of accused Baljit Singh

@ Mahna was dismissed on 21.09.2023 and bail application of accused

Harjinder Singh @ Raju was also dismissed on 29.08.2023 by the learned trial

Court.

9. Shri B.S.Sidhu, learned Senior counsel appearing for accused

Bhola Singh contended that the learned trial Court committed error in

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 12

dismissing the bail application of accused Bhola Singh. There is not even an

iota of evidence against accused Bhola Singh and FIR is registered against

unknown persons and accused Bhola Singh has been nominated on the alleged

disclosure statement of co-accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna and Bhupinder

Singh @ Goldy where both these co-accused in their alleged disclosure

statements did not name accused Bhola Singh. Accused Bhola Singh is in jail

since the date of his arrest on 22.11.2022 and had cooperated with the police

during investigation and is no more required for the purpose of investigation.

Till date, the prosecution has examined only one witness out of total 105

witnesses. The police has also added Sections 16,18 and 20 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against accused Bhola Singh. Section 16 of

UAPA, 1967 prescribes punishment for terrorist act. Section 18 of UAPA

prescribes punishment for conspiracy etc. whereas Section 20 prescribes

punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organization. Neither the

accused is a member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization nor he

committed any terrorist act. He further contended that if it is not proved that

accused was member of the organization as mentioned in UAPA Act, Section

20 of UAPA could not be invoked against accused Bhola Singh. There is no

evidence in the FIR or challan supplied under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to link the

accused with accused Goldy Brar (absconder). The mobile allegedly used by

the accused Bhola Singh has not come on record. Accused Bhola is involved

in eight other cases and out of these eight cases, he has been acquitted in two

cases and convicted in one case whereas trial is going on in the remaining

cases. The pendency of criminal cases cannot be a ground to deny the benefit

of regular bail and in support of his contention learned defence counsel has

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 13

relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Maulana Rashadi vs. State of

U.P. (2012) 3 SCC 382, wherein it has been held as under:-

“It  is  not  in  dispute  and  highlighted  that  the 

second  respondent  is  a  sitting  Member  of  Parliament 

facing  several  criminal  cases.  It  is  also  not  in  dispute 

that  most  of  the  cases  ended  in  acquittal  for  want  of 

proper  witnesses  or  pending  trial.  As  observed  by  the 

High  Court,  merely  on  the  basis  of  4  criminal 

antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot 

be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to 

find out the role of the accused in the case in which he 

has  been  charged  and  other  circumstances  such  as 

possibility  of  fleeing  away  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 

Court etc.” 

Learned counsel for accused Bhola Singh also contended that if

given benefit of regular bail, the accused will not leave India without

permission of the Court and completion of trial is likely to take time and

therefore, he vehemently prayed for release of accused Bhola Singh on regular

bail.

10. Learned defence counsel Mr. Kamal Narula, appe aring for

accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna also contended that accused Baljit Singh is not

named in the FIR. Accused Baljit Singh was arrested on 17.11.2022 and is in

custody since then and trial Court rejected his bail application without

assigning any reasons. The police has wrongly invoked sections 16,18 and 20

of UAPA, 1967 against the accused and there was no conversation of accused

Baljit Singh @ Mahna with accused Goldy Brar (since absconder) or Baljinder

Singh to link him with the commission of offence of murder of Pardeep Singh

Kataria @ Raju Dodhi. The accused is involved in four other cases but his

involvement in these cases cannot have any effect upon his regular bail in this

case. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Maulana Mohd. (supra). He further submits that accused will not leave India

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 14

without permission of the trial Court and he vehemently prayed for setting

aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and also prayed for

release of accused on regular bail.

11. Shri Sandeep Singh Bakolia, learned defence counsel appearing

for accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju also contended that accused is not named

in the FIR; he has not committed the alleged offences; he is in custody since

14.11.2022; he has been falsely implicated and no offences punishable under

Sections, 16,18 and 20 of UAPA Act is made out against the accused and he

has been named in this case only because he contacted with accused Goldy

Brar (absconder) and prosecution presumes that he was part of the conspiracy

for committing the alleged offences. The order of the learned trial Court is

liable to be set aside because there are no specific allegations against accused

Harjinder Singh @ Raju which could connect him with the alleged offences.

No recovery of incriminating substance has been effected from him. Challan

has already been presented before the trial Court and Section 43(5) of UAPA

Act will not be applicable. Accused is involved in five other cases. He has also

contended that accused if enlarged on bail shall not leave India and abide by

all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. In support of his

contention, learned defence counsel has also relied upon order dated

01.02.2021 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021

(Union of India vs. Najeeb) wherein Supreme Court has held that:

“long custody would be an essential factor while 

granting bail under the UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution 

of  India  provides  right  to  speedy  trial  and  long  period  of 

incarceration  would  be  a  good  ground  to  grant  bail  to an 

under trial for an offence punishable under the UAPA. It has 

also been held that the embargo under Section 43-D of the 

UAPA  would  not  negate  the  powers  of  the  Court  to  give 

effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 15

12. Controverting the allegations against the appellants, Shri Sidharth

Attri, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab relied upon the statements of

the prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of investigation,

confessional statements, ziminies in the police diary and the fact that all the

accused have already been charge-sheeted by the trial Court vide order dated

28.11.2023 and in view of the chequered criminal history of all the accused

persons, he vehemently prayed for dismissal of all the three bail applications.

13. The contention of learned defence counsel that the accused are

not members of any terrorist organization and therefore, no terrorist act is

committed by cannot be accepted. The term ‘Terrorist Act’ is defined in

Section 15 of the UAPA, 1967 which reads as under:-

“

15. Terrorist act.—4[(1)] Whoever does any act with 

intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, 

security  5[,  economic  security,]  or  sovereignty  of  India  or 

with  intent  to  strike  terror  or  likely  to  strike  terror  in  the 

people  or  any  section  of  the  people  in  India  or  in  any 

foreign country,— 

(a)  by  using  bombs,  dynamite  or  other  explosive 

substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other 

lethal  weapons  or  poisonous  or  noxious  gases  or  other 

chemicals or by  any other substances (whether biological 

radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or 

by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely 

to cause— 

(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or 

(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or 

(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the 

life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or 

(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of 

production  or  smuggling  or  circulation  of  high-quality 

counterfeit  Indian  paper  currency,  coin  or  of  any  other 

material; or  

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 16

(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a 

foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence 

of  India  or  in  connection  with  any  other  purposes  of  the 

Government of India, any State Government or any of their 

agencies; or 

(b)  overawes  by  means  of  criminal  force  or  the  show  of 

criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any 

public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public 

functionary; or 

(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens 

to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order 

to compel the Government of India, any State Government 

or  the  Government  of  a  foreign  country  or  6[an 

international  or  inter-governmental  organisation  or  any 

other person to do or abstain from doing any act; or] 

commits a terrorist act. 

7[Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section,— 

(a) “public  functionary”  means  the  constitutional 

authorities  or  any  other  functionary  notified  in  the 

Official Gazette by the Central Government as public 

functionary; 

This section clearly stipulates that the following acts are termed as

terrorist act:-

“

i)  act done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the 

unity,  integrity,  security,  economic  security,  or  sovereignty of 

India; 

 ii)  act done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the  

or sovereignty of India; 

 iii)  act done with intent to strike terror in the people or any 

section of the people in India or in any foreign country;” 

14. The abovesaid act should be done by using “bombs, dynamite or

other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other

lethal …………………… ……. to cause or likely to cause— (i) death of, or

injuries to, any person or persons; or………………..”

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 17

15. In the case in hand, death of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju

Dodhi is caused by use of fire arms for the simple reason that he was Sacha

Sauda premi i.e. follower to a religious sect based in District Sirsa (Haryana)

and he was accused in case FIR No. 128 dated 12.10.2015 under Section 295-

A IPC, P.S. Bajakhana and it is conceded that in the said FIR Shakti Singh was

also one of the accused and the allegations against them were sacrilege of the

sect Aang (page) of Shri Guru Granth Sahib. Accused Bhola Singh was

already in custody for causing bodily harm to Dera Premi Shakti Singh son of

Basant Singh and committing recce and said Dera Premi Shakti Singh is

accused in three cases i.e. FIR No. 117 dated 25.09.2015 under Section 295-A

IPC, P.S. Bajakhana, FIR No. 128 dated 12.10.2015 under Section 295-A IPC,

P.S. Bajakhana and another case FIR No. 63 dated 02.06.2015 under sections

380, 295-A IPC, P.S. Bajakhana, all three registered at Police Station

Bajakhana. The common thread is that deceased Pardeep Singh Kataria @

Raju Dodhi is one of the accused in FIR No. 128 dated 12.10.2015 under

section 295-A IPC. FIR Nos. 128 and 117 pertain to sacrilege of Shri Guru

Granth Sahib.

16. Undoubtedly, accused Bhola Singh is not named by co-accused

Manpreet Singh @ Money in his confessional statements dated 19.11.2022

and 21.11.2022 and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy in his confessional statement

dated 21.11.2022. Accused Bhola Singh was named during investigation by

them regarding which a zimini was entered in the police record by the

Investigating Officer and for this reason accused Bhola Singh does not find his

name in two confessional statements made by accused Manpreet Singh @

Money and one confessional statement of co-accused Bhupinder Singh @

Goldy. As per prosecution allegations, accused Manpreet @ Money got

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 18

recovered one pistol .9 mm and four live cartridges of 9mm whereas accused

Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy got recovered one pistol of 32 bore and three live

cartridges of said bore and one white cap in which human hairs were stuck.

17. As observed earlier, accused Bhola Singh was already in custody

when he was named in this case. During investigation of this case, he also

suffered a confessional statement before the investigating agency of Police

Station City Kotakpura. His confessional statement is in Punjabi script and

when translated in English, it makes the following reading:-

“I have formed a gang with Goldy Brar and other 

gangsters settled abroad. Gangsters are namely, Manpreet 

Singh  @  Money,  Bhupinder  Singh  @  Goldy,  Baljit  Singh  @ 

Mahna,  Vicky  Chauhan,  Swaran  Singh  @  Sunny, 

Pawandeep  Singh  @  Pavna,  Harpreet  Singh  @  Bhau, 

Jitender  Singh  @  Jeetu  and  Ramzan  Khan  @  Raj  Hooda. 

This  gang  is  formed  with  the  motive  to  create  fear  in  the 

minds of Premi’s (followers) of Dera Sacha Sauda who are 

settled in Punjab and to carry out this task, I often talk with 

Goldy  Brar  who  is  settled  in  Canada  through  Whats  App 

and signal App. Harvinder Singh @ Rinda who is settled in 

Pakistan is also in touch with us. To carry out of this task, 

we  conspired  to  commit  murder  of  the  followers  of  Dera 

Sacha Sauda. We have already done recce of the house of 

Shakti  Singh,  who  is  a  follower  of  Dera  Sacha  Sauda  for 

committing his murder but the police came to know about it 

and for this reason I and my companions were arrested by 

the  police.  Now  with  the  assistance  of  the  remaining 

members  of  the  group  and  after  making  arrangement  of 

arms and ammunitions, we have committed the murder of 

Pardeep  Singh  Kataria  @  Raju  Dodhi  a  follower  of  Dera 

Sacha  Saud.  His  companions  settled  abroad  shall  make 

efforts to complete the task”. 

18. Accused Bhola Singh during investigation on 24.11.2022 also

confessed about destroying of mobile phone after burning and flushing the ash

in toilet and the said mobile phone was used by him to converse with Goldy

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 19

Brar for the purpose of committing the crime of murder. Thus there are two

confessional statements of accused Bhola Singh on record and also the fact

that he was already in custody in another criminal case for house trespass,

recce of the house of Shakti Singh and conspiring to cause bodily harm to him

and said Shakti Singh was facing criminal trial in three cases and in one

criminal case FIR No. 128 regarding sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib,

deceased Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, victim of this case, was also

accused alongwith said Shakti Singh. His confessional statement coupled with

the fact that accused attempted to cause bodily harm to Shakti Singh and

committed recce of his house and committed house trespass, it prima-facie

proved that his intention was to cause harm to the followers of Dera Sacha

Sauda and he succeeded in causing murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju

Dodhi. Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi was not only a Sacha Sauda

follower but also accused of causing sacrilege of revered text.

19. As observed earlier, co-accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna was

arrested on 17.11.2022 and he was nominated on the basis of facts which came

on record during interrogation of juveniles MC and MN that accused Baljit

Singh @ Mahna assisted the assailants to abscond from the spot of crime after

committing the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi. Thus, there is

a statement of juveniles against accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna in helping

them in the commission of offence by assisting to abscond them from the spot

to save them from police.

20. So far as the allegations against accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju

are concerned, he was allegedly interacting with accused Goldy Brar (since

absconder) for committing the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju

Dodhi, when he was in custody in some other case. Police during investigation

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 20

also found that accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju was instrumental in

disclosing the name of other assailants of this case to accused Goldy Brar and

Goldy Brar came in touch with those through accused Harjinder Singh @

Raju.

21. Accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju also suffered a disclosure

statement that he asked co-accused Goldy Brar that they have to do religious

work and familiarized accused Goldy Brar of many persons of Faridkot and

Kotakpura. He also came in touch with visitors of Bhola Singh and he got

numbers of those persons (visitors of Bhola Singh). He also facilitated talk of

accused Manpreet Singh @ Money and Bhupinder Singh with accused Goldy

Brar and after murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi informed that

he has also contributed in religious task.

22. 13 accused of this case including the present three accused-

appellants are charged by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.11.2023

for the commission of offence under Sections 20,18,16 of UAP Act, Sections

120-B, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Accused Bhola Singh is also charged under section 201 read with Section 120-

B IPC for causing disappearance of his mobile phone through which he was in

touch with co-accused Satinder Pal Singh @ Goldy Brar (absconder and yet

not arrested) with intention of screening himself and other offenders from

legal punishment and accused are also charged under Section 212 read with

Section 120-B IPC, Section 273 read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 411 IPC

as motor cycle No. HR14-A-4083 during investigation was found to be

belonging to Udey Singh and accused Manpreet Singh @ Money, Bhupinder

Singh @ Goldy, Ramzan Khan @ Raj Hooda, Jitender Singh @ Jeetu and

Juveniles (MC) and (MN) kept the same in their possession for going or

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 21

having the reason to believe the same to have stolen. Accused Bhupinder

Singh @ Goldy, Manpreet Singh @ Money and Pawandeep @ Pavna are also

charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. This means that prima-facie case

under the provisions of these sections against all the accused including present

three accused were found to be made out. The learned trial Court rightly held

that allegations against the accused are serious in nature. Accused while being

in custody accessed the mobile phones, interacted with other co-accused who

were in custody, helped accused Satinder Pal Singh @ Goldy Brar to contact

with local people of Faridkot and conspired to carry out the murder of Pardeep

Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi who himself was accused in case FIR No. 128

under Section 249 IPC of sacrilege of holy book of Sikh religion. Moreover,

all the three accused had a chequred history. 10 criminal cases were registered

accused Bhola Singh and he was acquitted in two cases, discharged in one

case and is facing trial in remaining cases. 10 Criminal cases were registered

against accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna and out of these 10 cases, he has been

discharged in three criminal cases, acquitted in one case and is facing trial in

remaining cases. FIR No. 341 of 25.09.2023 is registered against him under

Section 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, 42/52-A of Prisons Act and FIR

No. 37 of 2025 is registered against him under Section 52-A of Prisons Act.

Accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju has already been convicted in three cases

and acquitted in six cases, discharged in two cases. Besides the present FIR

No. 228 dated 10.11.2022, he is facing trial in case FIR No. 95 of 2021 under

Section 52-A of the Prisons Act, P.S. City Faridkot, FIR No. 28 of 26.01.2023

under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. City Moga, FIR No. 7 dated 28.10.2022

under Section 153, 153-A, 212, 216, 120-B IPC, 25 of the Arms Act at P.S.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 22

SSOC Mohali, FIR No. 44 of 2025 under Section 308(5), 351 of BNS, P.S.

Kot Ise Khan. His production warrants are issued in seven other FIRs.

23. Embargo for release of regular bail is created under Section

43(d)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Section reads

as under:-

“43D(5)  Notwithstanding  anything 

contained in the Code, no person accused of an 

offence  punishable  under  Chapters  IV  and  VI 

of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on 

bail  or  on  his  own  bond  unless  the  Public 

Prosecutor  has  been  given  an  opportunity  of 

being heard on the application for such release: 

Provided that such accused person shall not be 

released  on  bail  or  on  his  own  bond  if  the 

Court,  on  a  perusal  of  the  case  diary  or  the 

report made under section173 of the Code is of 

the  opinion  that  there  are reasonable  grounds 

for  believing  that  the  accusation  against  such 

person is prima facie true.”

24. The proviso to Section 43(5)(d) of UAP Act clearly states that if

Courts are satisfied that the prima-facie allegations against the accuse are true

after “perusal of case diary or report made under section 173 Cr.P.C.” bail

cannot be granted. In other words, after examining documents annexed to

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. if the Courts are satisfied that allegations

against the accused are not true, bail under Section 43D(5) of UAP Act can be

granted.

25. Hon’ble Apex Court in case

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab,

(2024) 5 SCC 403, elaborately dealt with what amounts to a prima-facie case.

Paragraphs 24 to 35 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant which are

reproduced herein for ready reference:-

“24. The source of the power to grant bail in respect of 

non-bailable  offences  punishable  with  death  or  life 

imprisonment  emanates  from  Section  439  CrPC.  It  can  be 

noticed  that  Section  43-D(5)  of  the  UAP  Act  modifies  the 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 23

application of the general bail provisions in respect of offences 

punishable under Chapter IV and Chapter VI of the UAP Act. 

25.  A  bare  reading  of  sub-section  (5)  of  Section  43-D  shows 

that  apart  from  the  fact  that  sub-section  (5)  bars  a  Special 

Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the 

Public  Prosecutor  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  on  the 

application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso 

to sub-section (5) of Section 43-D puts a complete embargo on 

the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. 

It lays down that if the Court, “on perusal of the  case 

diary or the report made under Section 173 of the C ode 

of Criminal Procedure”, is of the opinion that there are 

reasonable  grounds  for  believing  that  the  accusation, 

against such person, as regards commission of offen ce 

or  offences  under  Chapter  IV  and/or  Chapter  VI  of  the 

UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person sh all 

not  be  released  on  bail  or  on  his  own  bond.  It  is 

interesting to note that there is no analogous prov ision 

traceable  in  any  other  statute  to  the  one  found  in 

Section  43-D(5)  of  the  UAP  Act.  In  that  sense,  the 

language  of  bail  limitation  adopted  therein  remains 

unique to the UAP Act. 

26.  The  conventional  idea  in  bail  jurisprudence  vis-à-vis 

ordinary penal offences that the discretion of courts must tilt in 

favour of the oft-quoted phrase — “bail is the rule, jail is the 

exception”  —  unless  circumstances  justify  otherwise  —  does 

not find any place while dealing with bail applications under 

the UAP Act. The “exercise” of the general power to grant bail 

under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of 

the words used in the proviso to Section 43-D(5)— “shall not 

be released” in contrast with the form of the words as found in 

Section  437(1)  CrPC  —  “may  be  released”  —  suggests  the 

intention of the legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, 

the rule. 

27. The courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task 

on hand. In dealing with bail applications under the UAP Act, 

the courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject 

bail. The “justifications” must be searched from the case diary 

and  the  final  report  submitted  before  the  Special  Court. The 

legislature  has  prescribed  a  low,  “prima  facie” 

standard, as a measure of the degree of satisfactio n, to 

be  recorded  by  the  Court  when  scrutinising  the 

justifications  [materials  on  record].  This  standard  can 

be  contrasted  with  the  standard  of  “strong  suspicion”, 

which is used by courts while hearing applications  for 

“discharge”.  In  fact,  the  Supreme  Court  in  Zahoor  Ahmad 

Watali [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : 

(2019)  2  SCC  (Cri)  383]  has  noticed  this  difference,  where  it 

said: (SCC p. 24, para 23) 

“23. … In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded 

by the court for opining that there are reasonable grounds for 

believing  that  the  accusation  against  the  accused  is  prima 

facie  true,  is  lighter  than  the  degree  of  satisfaction  to  be 

recorded for considering a discharge application or framing of 

charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act.” 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 24

(emphasis supplied) 

28.  In  this  background,  the  test  for  rejection  of  bail  is  quite 

plain.  Bail  must  be  rejected  as  a  “rule”,  if  after  hearing  the 

Public  Prosecutor  and  after  perusing  the  final  report  or  case 

diary,  the  court  arrives  at  a  conclusion  that  there  are 

reasonable  grounds  for  believing  that  the  accusations are 

prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not 

satisfied  —  that  the  courts  would  proceed  to  decide  the  bail 

application  in  accordance  with  the  “tripod  test”  (flight  risk, 

influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position 

is  made  clear  by  sub-section  (6)  of  Section  43-D,  which  lays 

down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in sub-

section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of 

Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force 

on grant of bail. 

29. On a textual reading of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act, the 

inquiry  that  a  bail  court  must  undertake  while  deciding  bail 

applications under the UAP Act can be summarised in the form 

of a twin-prong test: 

(1) Whether the test for rejection of the bail is satisfied? 

1.1.  Examine  if,  prima  facie,  the  alleged  “accusations”  make 

out an offence under Chapter IV or VI of the UAP Act; 

1.2.  Such  examination  should  be  limited  to  case  diary 

and final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC ; 

(2)  Whether  the  accused  deserves  to  be  enlarged  on  bail  in 

light  of  the  general  principles  relating  to  grant  of  bail  under 

Section 439 CrPC (“tripod test”)? 

On  a  consideration  of  various  factors  such  as  nature  of 

offence,  length  of  punishment  (if  convicted),  age,  character, 

status of accused, etc. the court must ask itself: 

2.1. Whether the accused is a flight risk? 

2.2. Whether there is apprehension of the accused tampering 

with the evidence? 

2.3.  Whether  there  is  apprehension  of  accused  influencing 

witnesses? 

30.  The  question  of  entering  the  “second  test”  of  the inquiry 

will not arise if the “first test” is satisfied. And merely because 

the first test is satisfied, that does not mean however that the 

accused  is  automatically  entitled  to  bail.  The  accused  will 

have to show that he successfully passes the “tripod test”. 

Test for rejection of bail: Guidelines as laid down by Supreme 

Court  in  Watali  case  [NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad  Shah  Watali, 

(2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] 

31.  In  the  previous  section,  based  on  a  textual  reading,  we 

have discussed the broad inquiry which courts seized of bail 

applications  under  Section  43-D(5)  of  the  UAP  Act  read with 

Section 439 CrPC must indulge in. Setting out the framework 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 25

of  the  law  seems  rather  easy,  yet  the  application  of  it, 

presents  its  own  complexities.  For  greater  clarity  in  the 

application  of  the  test  set  out  above,  it  would  be  helpful  to 

seek guidance from binding precedents. 

32. In this regard, we need to look no further than Watali case 

[NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 

SCC  (Cri)  383]  which  has  laid  down  elaborate  guidelines  on 

the approach that courts must partake in, in their application 

of  the  bail  limitations  under  the  UAP  Act.  On  a  perusal  of 

paras 23 to 24 and 26 to 27, the following 8-point propositions 

emerge and they are summarised as follows: 

32.1. Meaning of “prima facie true” : (Watali case [NIA v. 

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC 

(Cri)  383],  SCC  p.  24,  para  23) On  the  face  of  it,  the 

materials  must  show  the  complicity  of  the  accused  in 

commission of the offence. The materials/evidence m ust 

be good and sufficient to establish a given fact or chain 

of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted 

or contradicted by other evidence. 

32.2.  Degree  of  satisfaction  at  pre  charge-sheet,  post 

charge-sheet and post-charges — compared : (Watali case 

[NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 

SCC (Cri) 383], SCC p. 28, para 26) 

“26. … once charges are framed, it would be safe to assume 

that a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials 

before  the  Court,  which  prompted  the  Court  to  form  a 

presumptive  opinion  as  to  the  existence  of  the  factual 

ingredients  constituting  the  offence  alleged  against  the 

accused, to justify the framing of charge. In that situation, 

the accused may have to undertake an arduous task t o 

satisfy the Court that despite the framing of charge, the 

materials presented along with the charge-sheet (rep ort 

under  Section  173  CrPC),  do  not  make  out  reasonable 

grounds for believing that the accusation against him is 

prima  facie  true.  Similar  opinion  is  required  to  be 

formed  by  the  Court  whilst  considering  the  prayer  for 

bail,  made  after  filing  of  the  first  report  made  under 

Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case.” 

32.3.  Reasoning,  necessary  but  no  detailed  evaluation  of 

evidence:  (Watali  case  [NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad  Shah  Watali, 

(2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383], SCC p. 27, para 24) 

“24.  …  the  exercise  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Court  at  this 

stage—of  giving  reasons  for  grant  or  non-grant  of  bail—is 

markedly  different  from  discussing  merits  or  demerits of  the 

evidence.  The  elaborate  examination  or  dissection  of  the 

evidence is not required to be done at this stage.” 

32.4.  Record  a  finding  on  broad  probabilities,  not  based  on 

proof beyond doubt: (Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah 

Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383], SCC p. 27, 

para 24) 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 26

“The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis 

of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused 

in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise.” 

32.5. Duration of the limitation under Section 43-D(5): (Watali 

case  [NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad  Shah  Watali, (2019)  5  SCC  1  : 

(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383], SCC p. 27, para 26) 

“26.  …  the  special  provision,  Section  43-D  of  the  1967  Act, 

applies  right  from  the  stage  of  registration  of  FIR  for  the 

offences  under  Chapters  IV  and  VI  of  the  1967  Act  until  the 

conclusion of the trial thereof.” 

32.6. Material on record must be analysed as a “who le”; 

no piecemeal analysis: (Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad 

Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383], SCC p. 

28, para 27) 

“27.  … the  totality  of  the  material  gathered  by  the 

investigating  agency  and  presented  along  with  the 

report  and  including  the  case  diary,  is  required  to  be 

reckoned  and  not  by  analysing  individual  pieces  of 

evidence or circumstance.” 

32.7. Contents of documents to be presumed as true: (Watali 

case  [NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad  Shah  Watali, (2019)  5  SCC  1  : 

(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383], SCC p. 28, para 27) 

“27. … The Court must look  at  the contents of the document 

and take such document into account as it is.” 

32.8.  Admissibility  of  documents  relied  upon  by  prosecution 

cannot  be  questioned:  (Watali  case  [NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad 

Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383], SCC 

pp. 24 & 28, paras 23 & 27) 

The  materials/evidence  collected  by  the  investigation  agency 

in  support  of  the  accusation  against  the  accused  in  the  first 

information  report  must  prevail  until  contradicted  and 

overcome  or  disproved  by  other  evidence….  In  any  case,  the 

question  of  discarding  the  document  at  this  stage,  on  the 

ground of being inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible. 

33.  It  will  also  be  apposite  at  this  juncture  to  refer  to  the 

directions issued in Devendar Gupta v. NIA [Devendar Gupta 

v.  NIA, 2014  SCC  OnLine  AP  192  :  (2014)  2  ALD  (Cri)  251] 

wherein a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh 

strove to strike a balance between the mandate under Section 

43-D on one hand and the rights of the accused on the other. It 

was held as follows: (SCC OnLine AP) 

“The following instances or circumstances, in our view, would 

provide adequate guidance for the Court to form an opinion, as 

to whether the accusation in such cases is “prima facie true”: 

(1)  Whether  the  accused  is/are  associated  with  any 

organisation,  which  is  prohibited  through  an  order  passed 

under the provisions of the Act; 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 27

(2)  Whether  the  accused  was  convicted  of  the  offences 

involving  such  crimes,  or  terrorist  activities,  or  though 

acquitted  on  technical  grounds;  was  held  to  be  associated 

with terrorist activities; 

(3) Whether any explosive material, of the category used in the 

commission  of  the  crime,  which  gave  rise  to  the  prosecution; 

was recovered from, or at the instance of the accused; 

(4) Whether any eyewitness or a mechanical device, such as 

CC camera, had indicated the involvement, or presence of the 

accused, at or around the scene of occurrence; and 

(5)  Whether  the  accused  was/were  arrested,  soon  after  the 

occurrence, on the basis of the information, or clues available 

with the enforcement or investigating agencies.” 

(emphasis supplied) 

34.  In  Kekhriesatuo  Tep v.  NIA  [Kekhriesatuo  Tep v.  NIA, 

(2023)  6  SCC  58  :  (2023)  2  SCC  (Cri)  676]  the  two-Judge 

Bench (B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ.) while dealing with 

the  bail  application  for  the  offence  of  supporting  and  raising 

funds  for  terrorist  organisation  under  Sections  39  and  40  of 

the  UAP  Act  relied  upon  NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad  Shah  Watali 

[NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 

SCC  (Cri)  383]  and  observed  that:  (Kekhriesatuo  Tep  case 

[Kekhriesatuo  Tep v.  NIA, (2023)  6  SCC  58  :  (2023)  2  SCC 

(Cri) 676], SCC p. 63, para 13) 

While  dealing  with  the  bail  petition  filed  by  the  accused 

against  whom  offences  under  Chapters  IV  and  VI  of  UAPA 

have been made, the court has to consider as to whether there 

are  reasonable  grounds  for  believing  that  the  accusation 

against  the  accused  is  prima  facie  true.  The  Bench  also 

observed  that  distinction  between  the  words  “not  guilty”  as 

used  in  TADA,  MCOCA  and  the  NDPS  Act  as  against  the 

words “prima facie” in the UAPA as held in Watali case [NIA v. 

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC 

(Cri) 383] to state that a degree of satisfaction required 

in  the  case  of  “not  guilty”  is  much  stronger  than  the 

satisfaction  required  in  a  case  where  the  words  used 

are “prima facie”…. 

35.  In  Sudesh  Kedia v.  Union  of  India  [Sudesh  Kedia v. 

Union of India, (2021) 4 SCC 704 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 496] the 

Bench  of  Nageswara  Rao  and  S.  Ravindra  Bhat,  JJ.  while 

dealing with a bail application for the offence under Sections 

17,  18  and  21  of  the  UAP  Act  relied  upon  the  principle 

propounded  in  Watali  case  [NIA v.  Zahoor  Ahmad  Shah 

Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] (at SCC p. 24, 

para  23)  and  observed  that:  (Sudesh  Kedia  case  [Sudesh 

Kedia v. Union of India, (2021) 4 SCC 704 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 

496], SCC p. 708, para 12) 

the  expression  “prima  facie”  would  mean  that  the 

materials/evidence collated by the investigating ag ency 

in  reference  to  the  accusation  against  the  accused 

concerned must prevail until contradicted and overc ome 

or  disproved  by  other  evidence,  and  on  the  face  of it, 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 28

shows  that  complicity  of  such  accused  in  the 

commission  of  the  stated  offence.  It  must  be  good  and 

sufficient  on  its  face  to  establish  a  given  fact  or  the 

chain  of  facts  constituting  the  stated  offence,  unless 

rebutted or contradicted.”              (emphasis supplied)

26. Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3

SCC 713 held that Section 43D(5) per se does not oust the jurisdiction of the

constitutional courts to grant bail on violation of Part III of the Constitution of

India, but it further states that they have to be construed harmoniously. It has

been observed as under:–

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of 

statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the 

UAPA  per  se  does  not  oust  the  ability  of  the 

constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of 

violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, 

both  the  restrictions  under  a  statute  as 

well  as  the  powers  exercisable  under 

constitutional  jurisdiction  can  be  well 

harmonised.  Whereas  at  commencement  of 

proceedings,  the  courts  are  expected  to 

appreciate  the  legislative  policy  against  grant 

of  bail  but  the  rigours  of  such  provisions  will 

melt down where there is no likelihood of trial 

being completed within a reasonable time and 

the  period  of  incarceration  already  undergone 

has  exceeded  a  substantial  part  of  the 

prescribed sentence. Such an approach would 

safeguard against the possibility of provisions 

like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as 

the  sole  metric  for  denial  of  bail  or  for 

wholesale  breach  of  constitutional  right  to 

speedy trial.”(emphasis supplied). 

27. In Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 15 SCC 56,

Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:–

“51.  We  shall  now  turn  to  the  other  offence  under  the 

1967  Act,  which  is  under  Section  13  thereof,  and  the 

1860  Code  offences.  The  yardstick  for  justifying  the 

appellants'  plea  for  bail  is  lighter  in  this  context.  The 

appellants  are  almost  five  years  in  detention.  In  K.A. 

Najeeb [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713] 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 29

and Angela Harish Sontakke [Angela Harish Sontakke v. 

State  of  Maharashtra,  (2021)  3  SCC  723],  delay  of  trial 

was  considered  to  be  a  relevant  factor  while  examining 

the plea for bail of the accused. In K.A. Najeeb [Union of 

India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713], in particular, this 

same provision, that is, Section 43-D(5) was involved. 

52.  In  these  two  proceedings,  the  appellants  have  not 

crossed,  as  undertrials,  a  substantial  term  of  the 

sentence that may have been ultimately imposed against 

them  if  the  prosecution  could  establish  the  charges 

against  them. But  the  fundamental  proposition  of 

law  laid  down  in  K.A.  Najeeb  [Union  of  India  v.  K.A. 

Najeeb, (2021)  3  SCC  713],  that  a  bail-restricting 

clause  cannot  denude  the  jurisdiction  of  a 

constitutional  court  in  testing  if  continued 

detention in a given case would breach the concept 

of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution 

of India, would apply in a case where such a bail-

restricting  clause  is  being  invoked  on  the  basis  of 

materials  with  prima  facie  low-probative  value  or 

quality. 

53. In Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad 

Shah  Watali,  (2019)  5  SCC  1  :  (2019)  2  SCC  (Cri)  383] 

reference  was  made  to  the  judgment  of  Jayendra 

Saraswathi  Swamigal  v.  State  of  T.N.  [Jayendra 

Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 

2005 SCC (Cri) 481] in which, citing two earlier decisions 

of this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh [State v. Jagjit Singh, 

1960  SCC  OnLine  SC  2  :  AIR  1962  SC  253]  and 

Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Gurcharan Singh 

v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 

41],  the  factors  for  granting  bail  under  normal 

circumstances  were  discussed.  It  was  held  that  the 

nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of 

the  evidence,  circumstances  which  are  peculiar  to  the 

accused,  a  reasonable  possibility  of  the  presence  of  the 

accused  not  being  secured  at  the  trial;  reasonable 

apprehension  of  witnesses  being  tampered  with;  the 

larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant 

factors  for  granting  or  rejecting  bail.  Juxtaposing  the 

appellants'  case  founded  on  Articles  14  and  21  of  the 

Constitution  of  India  with  the  aforesaid  allegations  and 

considering  the  fact  that  almost  five  years  have  lapsed 

since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that 

the  appellants  have  made  out  a  case  for  granting  bail. 

Allegations  against  them  no  doubt  are  serious,  but  for 

that  reason  alone  bail  cannot  be  denied  to  them.  While 

dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 

1967  Act,  we  have  referred  to  the  materials  available 

against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify 

continued  detention  of  the  appellants,  pending  final 

outcome  of  the  case  under  the  other  provisions  of  the 

1860 Code and the 1967 Act.” (emphasis supplied).

28. The observations given by Hon’ble Apex Court in Harpreet

Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs. State of Gujarat through National

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 30

Investigating Agency, 2025 SCC On Line SC 1103, are also relevant on the

point regarding release of accused on bail in UAP Act. In paragraph-24, it has

been observed as under:-

          “24.The rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA 

would, however, in an appropriate case yield to the 

overarching mandate of Article21of the Constitution, 

especially where the trial is inordinately delayed or 

where the incarceration becomes punitive. However, 

such  relaxation  cannot  possibly  be  automatic  and 

must be evaluated in light of the specific facts and 

risks  associated  with  each  case,  as  has  been 

previously clarified.” 

29. Delhi High Court in Jagtar Singh Johal vs. NIA, 2024 SCC

Online Del 89, observed that the bail under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA

cannot be granted solely on the basis of long incarceration of the accused

person and the same has to be viewed along with the gravity of offences

which are supported by the relevant material provided by the NIA. The

relevant portion of the same is as follows:-

“76. Cases involving serious crimes could be of 

various categories, such as offences relating to 

laundering  of  money,  offences  related  to 

counterfeit currency, terrorist acts, etc. Acts of 

Terrorism  and  association  with  banned 

organizations  which  have  international 

networks as also acts against the nation have 

to be considered as a distinct and more serious 

category of offences. All offences covered under 

the  UAPA  cannot  be  treated  with  the  same 

brush.  Even  for  the  purpose  of  grant  of  bail, 

such  offences  are  not  to  be  examined  on  the 

basis of mere facts of one particular FIR but on 

a  larger  canvas  in  the  overall  scheme  of  the 

multiple  FIRs,  if  existing,  against  a  particular 

accused. The damage in terms of loss of life as 

also  the  intent  behind  such  attacks  i.e.,to 

destabilise the law and order situation as well 

as to strike terror in the minds of people in or 

outside  India,  has  to  be  considered  for  the 

purposes  of  granting  bail.  Terrorist  activities, 

which  have  trans-national  links,  would  also 

fall  in  a  more  serious  and  grave  category  of 

cases.  Accused,  who  are  involved  in  such 

activities,  could  be  working  overtly  and 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 31

covertly.  The  fact  that  they  could  be  linked 

through  dark  networks  which  are  easily  not 

traceable  needs  to  be  borne  in  mind. 

Investigating  agencies  face  enormous 

challenges  in  unearthing  evidence  in  such 

cases. While speedy trial is necessary as a 

Constitutional  prescription,  in  cases 

involving anti- national activities and that 

too  terrorism  at  an  international  scale, 

long  incarceration  in  itself  ought  not  to 

lead  to  enlargement  on  bail  when  facts 

show involvement in such activities. In the 

case  of  persons  associated  with  terrorist  or 

unlawful  organizations  having  their  activities 

spanning  across  countries,  the  consideration 

for grant of bail in such serious offences ought 

to  be  strictly  dealt  with,  as  prescribed  in  the 

statute (UAPA),on the benchmarks contained in 

Section 43D(5) of the Act.” (emphasis supplied).  

30. The fact that accused conspired to commit the murder of one

of the accused i.e. Shakti Singh involved in sacrilege case and were

successful to perpetuate the crime of murder of another accused i.e. victim of

this case with the connivance of other co-accused who were not in custody,

the accused/appellants, if enlarged on bail, can indulge in many more

offences of the similar nature especially when all the three accused-appellants

have chequered criminal history. By committing the murder of a person who

was accused in a criminal case, the present accused-appellants also interfered

in the judicial process of determination of the guilt of the deceased. Deceased

Pardeep Kumar @ Raju Dodhi being accused in a sacrilege case had a right

to fair trial and due process of law. By committing his murder, the State was

deprived of its duty to prosecute against him. The Courts have the legitimate

authority to determine the guilt and administer punishment. Accused by

taking law in their own hands under the pretext that they were performing the

religious task undermined the fundamental principle of rule of law. By

committing his murder, deceased Pardeep Kumar alias Raju Dodhi was

permanently removed from the judicial process. The murder of accused of

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 32

criminal offence prevents the legal system to function which is direct

challenge to the authority and power of the Court. Although in this case, only

one witness out of total 105 witnesses is examined by the prosecution as of

now but the trial can be expedited. The ground that examination of all the

witnesses is likely to take time is no ground for release of accused on regular

bail.

31. In view of above discussion, we are inclined that accused-

appellants are not entitled for release on regular bail at this stage.

Accordingly, all the three bail applications moved by above named three

accused-appellants are dismissed.

32. Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

33. Any observations made herein above while deciding these bail

applications shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

34. Since only one witness out of total 105 witnesses has been

examined by the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to take the following

steps for expeditious conclusion of the trial:-

(i) The trial Court shall frame a schedule of dates in advance for 

summoning the witnesses and shall also endeavour to record the 

statements  of  the  PWs  whose  presence  is  duly  secured.  Special 

Messengers be deputed for securing the presence of the prosecution 

witnesses.  If  deemed  necessary,  a  letter  may  be  written  to  the 

Senior Superintendent of Police, concerned, for getting the needful 

done for ensuring timely presence of prosecution witnesses; and 

(ii) The prosecution is directed to ensure the presence of all the 

prosecution witnesses before the trial Court on the dates as may be 

fixed  by  the  trial  Court  for  recording  prosecution evidence.  The 

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 33

District Attorney concerned to take necessary steps for the purpose 

of securing the presence of the remaining prosecution witnesses;

A copy of this order be placed in the connected files.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) (RAMESH KUMARI)

JUDGE JUDGE

17.11.2025

ravinder

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No

Whether reportable √Yes/No