CRA-D-323-2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-D-323-2026

JUDGEMENT

RESERVED ON

JUDGEMENT

PRONOUNCED

ON

OPERATIVE PART

PRONOUNCED OR

FULL

UPLOADED ON

21.04.2026 06.05.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 06.05.2026

Shokeen ...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sankalp Dhanda, Advocate

Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Vidyotman Malik, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Section

257 01.08.2023 City Nuh 148, 149, 147, 186, 332, 33 3, 342,

353, 302, 379B, 307, 395, 397, 427,

120B IPC and 25 of Arms Act and

Sections 13(1)(A), 13(1(B),

15(1)A, 15(1)B, 16 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

Bail Application number before the Sessions

Court

CNR No.HRNU010010262026

CIS No.BA-378-2026

Date of Decision 12.02.2026

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh,

vide order dated 12.02.2026, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing the

present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

CRA-D-323-2026 -2-

2. The appellant’s counsel further submits that the appellant would have no objection

whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the

appellant repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a

sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to

revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall

have the authority to cancel this bail, and to which the appellant shall have no objection.

Counsel for the appellant further submits that he shall not use his right of speech expression

beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and State and gone through pleadings as

well as reply and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

4. The case of the prosecution is being taken from the reply dated April 03, 2026 filed

by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuh. It shall be appropriate to refer to the following

paragraphs of the reply, which reads as follows:-

“3. That the detailed facts emanating from the present case are that on

01.08.2023, SI Surjeet Singh was present at the police station, City Nuh. In

the meantime, MHC police Station, City Nuh informed him that on

31.07.2023, a large number of people had attacked on police officers of

Police Station, Cyber Nuh. Anai Mandi Gate, Nuh and injured has been

admitted in Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. On receiving the aforesaid

information. SI Surjeet along with constable Subhankha No. 322/Nuh

reached at Medanta Hospital, Gurugram and after reaching their Station

House Officer, Inspector Ajay Kumar, Police Station, Khedki Daula was

found present in Hospital and he got recorded his statement, which runs as

under.-It is stated that I am Station House Officer of police station, Khedki

Daula. On 31.07.2023, I received an order from higher police authorities

that you should reach Nuh for law and order duty along with the police

party of police station, Khedki Daula. Thereafter, receiving the said

information, I left for district Nuh from Police Station, KhediDaula in

Government vehicle bearing registration Do. HR-30GV-5511 along with

police staff SI Devendra, PSI Arun, HC Shera, driver Ct Pawan Kumar,

HGH Niraj No. 112/GGM and HGH Guruseva No. 2128/FTB. It is further

submitted that Sh.Manveer Singh IPS, DCP, Manesar along with Station

House Officer, IMT Manesar, Insp Devendra, Station Police Station,

Bilaspur, Insp Rahul Dev along with their two government vehicles and

QRT team of district Manesar were also with us in a government bus. When

our vehicles reached near Grain Market Gate near Cyber Police Station,

Nuh, suddenly a large number of people were seen on the road. They threw

CRA-D-323-2026 -3-

large stones on the road, blocking our path, and began pelting the stones on

us and were also firing bullets with the intent to kill us. The stones thrown

by the mob hit all the police officers. My vehicle overturned after colliding

with the stones thrown by the mob to block the way. The mob attacked us

with stones, sticks, and rods and all of them were carrying illegal weapons,

sticks, iron rods, and stones. They have brutally beaten the police personnel

and forcibly snatched their mobile phones and wallets. Other personnel in

the police party somehow saved the lives of the police personnel by firing in

the air for self-defence. I arranged for some means of transport for the

injured personnel and sent them to hospital. Constable Pawan Kumar, HC

Shair Singh, SI Devendra, PSI Arun, HGH Nirja No. 112/GGM, HGH

Gursev 2128/FTB were seriously injured in this incident. HGH Gursev was

admitted to General Hospital, Sohna, Gurugram due to sustained serious

injuries. I along with other police personnel were admitted to Vedanta

Hospital, Gurugram. I have come to know that HGH Niraj No. 112/GGM

and HGH Gursev No. 2128/FTB have died due to sustained injuries in said

incident. Our vehicle is badly damaged and is standing at the spot. Hence, it

is requested that strictest legal action should be taken against the accused,

whose names and addresses are unknown. SD-AJAY MALIK DT 01.08.23.

From the gist of the application, crime under Section, 147,148,149,

156,342,332,353,307,302,379B, 120B IPC, &25-54-59 ARMS ACT was

found to be committed, upon which a case FIR No 257 dated 01.08.2023

under sections 147,148, 149, 186,342,332,353,307,302,379B, 120B IPC, &

25-54-59 ARMS ACT was registered at Police Station, City Nuh and

investigation of the present case was conducted by local police.

4. That during the course of investigation, proceedings under Section 174

CrPC were conducted by the investigation officer and PMR of deceased

Home Guard Neeraj and Gurusebak were obtained, which are annexed as

Annexure R-1 & R-2. The cause of death of deceased Neeraj in this case is

multiple injuries and its complications following ante mortem blunt force

impact. Blood has been preserved to rule out associated intoxication. And

cause of death of Gurusebak is shock and hemorrhage following ante

mortem blunt force impact. Blood has been preserved to rule out associated

intoxication.

5. That on 6.8.2023, scene of incident was inspected by scene of crime team,

who found a khaki cap, on which blood was present and one torn air bag of

vehicle no. HR-26GV-7062, on which blood was stained and one seat of

vehicle no. HR-30GV-5511 on which blood was stained was obtained from

CRA-D-323-2026 -4-

the spot by the Scene of Crime team and the parcels were prepared, which

were handed over to local police which were taken into police possession

though memo of recovery and the said memo was got attested from the

attesting witnesses.

6. That it is also pertinent to mention here that accused Sakeem son of

Sharif, resident of Guwalda Ps Sadar Nuh was arrested in case FIR No. 408

dated 10.8.2023 under sections 148, 149, 427, 395, 397 IPC and Arms Act

Police Station, Sadar Nuh was interrogated by the local police, who

disclosed that accused Sohil son of Noor Mohammad resident of Dhekli,

police station, Sadar Nuh and Appellant Shokeen son of Zaheer resident of

Firozpur Namak currently resident of ward no. 1, Nuh were involved in the

commission of crime. Thereafter, on 26.08.2023, accused Sohil son of Noor

Mohammad resident of Thekli, police station, Sadar Nuh was arrested in the

present case after collecting sufficient evidence against him. He was also

interrogated by the investigating officer, upon which he has suffered his

disclosure statement without any pressure and admitted commission of

crime and stated that Appellant Shokeen was also involved in the said

incident. A copy of said disclosure statement of accused Sohil is annexed as

Annexure R-3. In pursuance of disclosure statement, accused Sohil has got

recovered two mobile phones and two SIM card no. 80530xxxxx and

70278xxxxx, which were taken into police possession through memo of

recovery. The CAFÉ Id said numbers was obtained from service provider

and location of mob no.70278xxxxx was obtained of dated 31.7.2023 at

15.53.

7. That during further course of investigation, accused/Appellant Shokeen

son of Zaheer resident of Ferozepur Namak, currently resident of Ward No.

1 Nuh was arrested in the present case on 26.08.2023 after collecting

sufficient evidence against him. He was also interrogated by the

investigating officer, upon which he has suffered his disclosure statement

and admitted commission of crime. A copy of disclosure statement is

annexed as Annexure R-4. Thereafter, on 26,08.2023, accused/Appellant

Shokeen & accused Sohil were produced before the Ld. Court of Area

Magistrate and two days police custody remand was obtained. In pursuance

of disclosure statement, accused Sohil has got recovered one country-made

pistol, which was used by him in the commission of crime. Thereafter,

accused/Appellant Shokeen has got recovered one country-made pistol and

four live cartridge and four empty cartridge, which were taken into police

possession through memo of recovery and the said memo is annexed as

CRA-D-323-2026 -5-

Annexure R-5. Thereafter, he was produced before the Ld. Court of Area

Magistrate, who sent to judicial jail, Nuh.”

5. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph number

8 of the reply which contains the evidence against the appellant and it reads as follows:-

“8. Evidence against the Appellant under the provisions of UAPA act :-

In this regard it is humbly submitted that the Appellant and co-accused were

armed with deadly weapons and have used criminal force and caused attack

on the Police Station, Cyber Crime, Nuh, broke the wall of the Police

Station, set fire Govt. vehicles and property and fired on police party and

Home guard on duty and committed death of two Home guards on duty.

They have also looted money and mobile phones from the Police party. It is

further relevant to mention here that during the course of investigation of

case, It has been revealed that the Appellant and co-accused had attacked

on the religious procession of Hindu community who have visited Nuh for

offering holy water on the idol of Lord Shiva. The aforesaid act of violence

committed by muslims was funded by the foreign extremists, who wants to

de-stabilise our country. Therefore, the provisions of UAP ACT have been

added in the present case. It is also pertinent to mention here that Sufficient

evidence have come-forth against them during the cause of investigation,

which is sufficient for their conviction .It was communal riot between Hindu

and Muslim community, who have also pronounced "Allaha hu Akbar"

before firing on the Hindu pilgrims, damaged the vehicles pelted stones and

killed two Homeguard personals who Here on their duties at the relevant

time. A copy of the Sanction order regarding UAP Act is annexed as

Annexure R-6 CDR & CAF ID has been obtained and the presence of the

Appellant and his co-accused were found at the spot of incident, which

clearly depicts that the Appellant was actively involved in the commission of

crime.

9. That it is to mention here that also worthwhile accused/Appellant Shokeen

has played vital role in the commission of crime. He was actively involved in

the present case. It is also submitted that he had fired against the Bajrang

Dal team. On 31.7.2023, a religious yatra was to be taken out from Nalhar

temple, Nuh, in which he along with other people of his religion planned to

commit riot. Thereafter, he had taken one illegal country-made pistol and

reached near bus stand along with other religious extremist persons. After

this, he and co-accused pelted bricks at the pilgrims, who were coming for

Yatra at Adwar Chowk. They had also broke the windows of the vehicles.

CRA-D-323-2026 -6-

When the police vehicle arrived on the spot to rescue them, then he and

other co-accused pelted stones at the police party. The Appellant fired in the

air with illegal weapon. After this, he and other co-accused attacked on two

police vehicles in front of the gate of Cyber Police Station, Nuh near Anaj

Mandi. They had also beaten the police personnel sitting inside the vehicle

with sticks. Hence, it is also crystal clear that the Appellant was involved in

the commission of crime in the present case.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the evidence is stage managed and

he submits that the evidence against the appellant regarding country made pistol was later

on added. To this, counsel for the State has referred to another reply dated 18.04.2026, filed

by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuh. It shall be appropriate to mention

that as per the State, the ballistic report issued by Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban

connected the country made pistols marked as W/1 and W/2 are in working condition and

further that cartridges were fired from both the country made pistols W/1 and W/2. Even

the test report of the country made pistol was attached therewith.

7. Mr. Aman Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, argued that all

this is stage managed because in the arrest memo there is an interpolation and the date has

been changed from August 24, 2023 to August 26, 2023 by overwriting with a pen.

Learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to personal search memo of the

present appellant Shokeen (AnnexureA-26), as per which his personal search was

conducted on August 24, 2023. He further submits that Annexure A-27 refers to arrest

memo where the date of arrest is shown as 26

th

August 2023. Even the recovery of mobile

phone and SIM is on August 26, 2023. Per Annexure A-29, the pistol in question was sent

for testing on November 08, 2023.

8. In the present case, riots had taken place, in which the vehicles of the police were

damaged and people were killed. The issue before this Court is in evidence connecting the

present appellant with the above captioned FIR and nothing beyond. As mentioned above

the evidence against the appellant is for pistol but there is a contradiction regarding his date

of arrest. Annexure A-27 clearly mentions an overwriting, where the date was changed

from August 24, 2023 to August 26, 2023 and the mobile phone linking the accused was

recovered on August 26, 2023 (Annexure A-28).

9. If the accused had already been detained on August 24, 2023 and later on his arrest

memo shows the date with interpolation as August 26, 2023, it would show that he was not

produced before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours as stipulated in the law.

Furthermore the State was unable to explain this contradiction.

CRA-D-323-2026 -7-

10. Given above this contradiction itself is sufficient not to continue further custody of

the appellant in the present case. This is subject to the condition that the present order is

purely on the facts applicable to the appellant-Shokeen and this order shall not be cited as a

precedent when it comes to the decide the bail applications of other accused persons.

Furthermore, learned Senior Advocate on instructions from the assisting counsel, states that

they have further instructions to make an undertaking that appellant would live like a

decent human being without admitting or conceding about the crime and in case he

indulges in any criminal behavior or commits any offense where the sentence prescribed is

more than three years and in case of NDPS where the quantity involved is more than 50%

of the intermediate quantity or is an offense under Section 19/24 or 27 A of NDPS Act

,then they shall have no objection if this bail is canceled by the trial Court.

11. In Yedala Subba Rao and Anr. v. UOI, 2023-INSC-382, Apr 17, 2023, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court holds,

[21]. We have examined material relied upon against the appellants in

paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit of the respondent as well as the

chargesheet. Taking the material against the appellants as it is and

without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form

an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the

UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail

under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case.

We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment

are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of

examining the case in the light of the proviso to subsection (5) of Section

43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these

observations.

12. In Vernon v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 10 S.C.R. 867; 2023 INSC 655, July 28,

2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[43]. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) [National

Investigation Agency -vs- Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC

1]reference was made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal

-vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier

decisions of this court in the cases of State -vs- Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962

SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh -vs- State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC

118), 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 tempered

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

CRA-D-323-2026 -8-

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 others provisions

of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.

13. In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, SLP (Criminal) No.10047 of

2023, 2024-INSC-92, February 07, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[18]. 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 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 proviso to Section 43D (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.

[19]. The courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task on hand. In

dealing with bail applications under 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 satisfaction, to be recorded by

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 Ali Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1] has noticed this

difference, where it said:

“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.”

[20]. 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 43D, 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.

CRA-D-323-2026 -9-

[21]. On a textual reading of Section 43 D(5) 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 Courts 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?

22. 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’.

[33]. Hence, we are of the considered view that the material on record

prima facie indicates the complicity of the accused as a part of the

conspiracy since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of a

preparatory act towards the commission of terrorist act under section 18

of the UAP Act.

[34]. For the aforementioned reasons the bail application of the Appellant

is rejected and consequently the appeal fails…

14. In Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P., [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1054; 2024 INSC 534, July

18, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[5]. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the appellant by

the informant Inspector Tej Bahadur Singh under Sections 121A, 489B

and 489C of IPC. It came to be registered as Crime No. 01 of 2015.

Informant stated that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of

Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500, totalling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500.00, were

recovered from the possession of the appellant on 22.02.2015 at about

09:10 PM from the Indo-Nepal border. He was apprehended by a

constable of the ATS team and brought to the ATS Headquarter. In the

course of investigation, the appellant disclosed his name as Sheikh Javed

Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari, resident of Narayani Parsa,

Belwa, Nepal. In addition to the fake Indian currency notes, one

Nepalese driving licence of the appellant and one Nepalese citizenship

certificate also of the appellant were recovered besides two mobile

phones. According to the police, appellant had confessed that he was

engaged in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency

notes in Nepal. The appellant was arrested on 23.02.2015.

CRA-D-323-2026 -10-

[32]. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and

personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is

overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained

from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory

provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-

undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been

infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the

way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever

stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of

constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.

In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline

to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular

statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of

our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb

(supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of

two Judges like us.

[33]. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the

considered view that continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be

justified. We are, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

15. In Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat, [2025] 6 S.C.R. 291; 2025 INSC 662,

May 13, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[25]. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions

advanced by both sides and upon careful perusal of the material on

record, we are of the view that the Appellant has not been able to make

out a case for grant of regular bail at this stage.

[26]. We say so for the reason that despite no direct recovery of

contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution’s case is that he

played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of

narcotics concealed as talc through M/s Magent India—which he

allegedly controlled through a proxy. The consignment, although not

seized with heroin, shares structural and logistical similarities with those

where heroin was ultimately found.

[27]. The charge against the Appellant must also be evaluated in light of

the broader matrix of facts, including

(i) his alleged meetings in Dubai with a principal foreign accused;

(ii) the transfer of documents through intermediaries for the

clearance of a flagged consignment;

(iii) efforts to retrospectively fabricate invoices and assign

responsibility to others;

(iv) the use of multiple firms allegedly connected to him to

obfuscate the true nature of the transactions; and

(v) his telephonic calls to certain co-conspirators.

These aspects, supported by the statements of protected witnesses and

circumstantial linkages, currently meet the threshold of prima facie

satisfaction regarding the Appellant’s complicity.

CRA-D-323-2026 -11-

[28]. This Court is cognizant of the fact that no heroin or narcotic

substances were directly recovered from the consignment linked to the

Appellant. However, the investigative narrative does not rest solely on

physical recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and

facilitation. In such cases, the absence of direct seizure is not dispositive,

particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious

entities, and barter-based compensation—features which, according to

the prosecution, mark the smuggling architecture employed in the present

matter.

[29]. The Appellant faces serious charges, which allegedly carry grave

societal ramifications, including the facilitation of cross-border drug

trafficking—an offence with well-documented links to organised crime

and public health degradation. The seizure in the connected consignment

is part of what the Prosecution claims to be the largest heroin bust in

Indian history, valued at over INR 21,000 crores. The scale and

sophistication of the operation, involving foreign syndicates, shell firms,

medical visas, and false documentation, elevates this case far beyond

routine NDPS violations.

[30]. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that multiple key witnesses

still remain to be examined, and the trial while underway, will take time

in completion. Out of 24 most vulnerable or material witnesses, two have

died, and two others are untraceable. One of the deceased witnesses, a

retired Customs Officer, was found dead on the very day he was

scheduled to record his statement under Section 164 CrPC. The risk of

witness tampering or elimination—whether directly attributable to the

Appellant or not—is a real and present concern that militates against the

grant of bail at this stage.

[31]. Moreover, the Appellant’s criminal antecedents, though not

involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple DRI

and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes,

undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption offences.

These antecedents are relevant only for the limited purpose of evaluating

the Appellant’s propensity to interfere with the process of justice if

enlarged on bail.

[32]. NIA has also highlighted that several accused remain absconding,

including the primary foreign conspirators. In that context, the

Appellant’s foreign travel, overseas connections, and financial capacity

cannot be overlooked in evaluating the possibility of flight risk. These

are not speculative concerns but flow directly from the Appellant’s prior

conduct and profile.

[33]. We are conscious of the settled principle that pre-trial incarceration

should not translate into punitive detention. The Appellant has been in

custody since 24.08.2022, and while we do not find that this duration

alone warrants bail under the present circumstances, the Appellant shall

remain at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months,

or upon substantial advancement in the trial, whichever is earlier. Such a

course would allow the Prosecution to complete the examination of its

CRA-D-323-2026 -12-

core witnesses while preserving the accused’s right to seek release at a

later and more appropriate stage.

[34]. Before parting with this matter, we deem it necessary to clarify that,

at this stage, it would be premature and speculative to extend the

allegations against the Appellant to the domain of terror financing. While

the prosecution has invoked provisions of the UAPA and has broadly

linked the smuggling enterprise to trans-national syndicates with

suspected affiliations, there is no compelling reason to currently link the

Appellant and proscribed terrorist organisations, either within or outside

the country. The evidentiary foundation to sustain such a grave allegation

must be clear and compelling—something that, can be seen only after a

substantial portion of evidence is led by both the parties.

[35]. In light of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, we dismiss the instant appeal with the

following directions:

i. We are not inclined to enlarge the Appellant on regular bail at

this stage. He shall be at liberty to renew his plea for regular bail

after a period of 6 months, or at a stage where the ongoing trial has

progressed substantially;

ii. The NIA is directed to submit to the Special Court an additional

list of witnesses who, in its assessment, are sensitive or material,

inasmuch as their testimony may have a direct bearing on the role

of the Appellant or other co-accused in the ongoing trial and

connected investigation;

iii. The Special Court is directed to list the matter twice in a month

and record the statements of Prosecution witnesses on a continuous

and uninterrupted basis; and

iv. If the Presiding Officer of the Special Court has not been posted

thus far, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of

Gujarat to do the needful within a week.

16. In the light of the Judicial Precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

considering the nature of allegations against the appellant and keeping in mind the stage of

trial, and the pre-trial custody, we are of the considered opinion that further pre-trial

incarceration would cause grave injustice to the appellant.

17. Further, the appellant, through his counsel, undertakes not to indulge in any Anti-

India activity and also that he would not cross the limits of his speech and expression

beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and considering the

entire facts and the pre-trial custody, which on the face of it, is excessive for the purpose of

pre-trial custody and the undertaking given by the appellant through counsel, we are of the

considered opinion that his further custody is not required.

CRA-D-323-2026 -13-

18. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances unique and

peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the appellant makes a case for

bail.

19. Given the above, provided the appellant is not required in any other case, the

appellant shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds

of Rs. 1 lac to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court and due to unavailability before

any nearest Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate/ Ilaqa Magistrate.

20. The appellant shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the

concerned Court(s) on all dates. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence,

influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any

witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances

of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

21. The appellant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, and if he does so, the

State shall have the right to apply for cancellation of bail.

22. The appellant shall mention his current address, phone number, e-mail, if any, and

present address, native address, and in case of change, he shall inform the SHO of the

police station concerned through a registered letter by mentioning the case number.

Additionally, he shall also inform the concerned Court before whom the bonds were

furnished.

23. Given the background of allegations against the appellant, it becomes paramount to

protect the members of society as well as the integrity of the country, and incapacitating the

accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report,

discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of

firearms. This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of

probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it

is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction. Given the nature of the allegations and

the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the appellant shall surrender all weapons,

firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license, to the concerned authority

within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of compliance.

However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the appellant shall be entitled to renew and

take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided that this is otherwise permissible

under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would

also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

24. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform

and ensure that the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of

CRA-D-323-2026 -14-

NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29,

decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The

bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they

seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts,

while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of

a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and

liberties must be eschewed.”

25. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if

the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted

to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary

consequences.”

26. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the appellant

repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of

imprisonment for more than three years, the State shall file an application to revoke this

bail before the trial Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority

to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

27. In addition to the above conditions, the Appellants shall abide by all the following

conditions as were ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gulfisha Fatima v.

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2026-INSC-2, Jan 05, 2026. It is clarified that the conditions

mentioned in Gulfisha Fatima supra are to be preferred over the following conditions

imposed by this Court:

[434]. vii. The appellants shall not make or publish or disseminate any

information, statement, article or post whether in print, electronic or

social media concerning the present case or its participants till conclusion

of the trial.

viii. The appellants shall not participate in any programme or address or

attend any gathering, rally or meeting, whether physically or virtually till

conclusion of the trial.

ix. The appellants shall not circulate any post either in electronic form or

physical form or circulate any hand bills, posters, banners, etc in any

form whatsoever.

xi. The appellants shall maintain peace and good behaviour throughout

and in the event of any offence committed during the pendency of the

trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for revocation of the bail

granted by filing such application before the Trial Court and in the event

of such application being filed the Trial Court shall consider it on its own

merits.

CRA-D-323-2026 -15-

[435]. In case of breach of any of the afore-stated conditions imposed or

in the event of appellants having misused the liberty granted, it shall be

open to the Trial Court to cancel the bail which would be necessarily

after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

28. Any observation made hereinabove is tentative and is not an expression of opinion

on the case's merits, and it shall have no bearing on the trial or on the case of the co-

accused, and the trial Court shall not advert to these comments.

29. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in

any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.

30. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided

on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13,

holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or

whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is

appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not

immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a

situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the

downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court

before whom the bail bonds are furnished.”

31. Given the above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed in terms

mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR)

JUDGE

06.05.2026

Anju rani

Whether speaking/reasoned YES

Whether reportable NO