CRA-D-206-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-206-2026 JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART PRONOUNCED OR FULL UPLOADED ON 07.05.2026 22.05.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 22.05.2026 Vishal Ginda @ Sukh @ Vishal Bhullar ...Appellant Versus National Investigation Agency …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Akhil Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. RC No. Dated Police Station Section 13/2025/ NIA/DLI 22.05.2025 Qila Lal Singh 16, 17, 18, 18B, 19, 20, 39 of UAPA, 61(2), 109, 238 BNS, 3,4,5,6 of Explosive Substances Act, 25, 27 of Arms Act Arising out of FIR No. Dated Police Station Section 25 07.04.2025 Qila Lal Singh - Bail Application number before the Sessions Court BA/62/2026 CNR No. PBSA01000270-2026 Date of Decision 27.01.2026 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Special Judge, NIA, Punjab vide order dated 27.01.2026, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. 2. Per custody certificate, the appellant has no other criminal antecedent. 1 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 3. Appellant seeks bail on custody as well as on merits. As per custody certificate dated 06.05.2026, the appellant’s custody is 01 year and 01 day. Considering the nature of allegations, the custody is too less. 4. Appellant also seeks bail on merits. Facts of the case are that on the intervening night of April 6/7, 2025 one RPG attack was carried out on Police Station Qila Lal Singh. This rocket propelled grenade attack did not cause loss of life but was targeted to create a feeling of insecurity and instability. The appellant was arrested on April 21, 2025 and investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed and now the case is awaiting trial. The role of the appellant is of one of the links in the module which had carried out such attack. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA argued that when these types of attacks are carried out, people are assigned roles which they carry out and if one of such persons does not carry out their role, then the entire attack fails, but in the present case, the role of the appellant was to provide firearms, logistics, safe passage and in between some financial support which he diligently carried out in favor of the other anti-India agents and as such, he is fully involved in the commission of the said offence. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence that he was aware of the intentions and activities being carried out by the other accused, even if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted hypothetically. 7. An analysis of the arguments and the pleadings would lead to the following outcome. 8. It shall be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the affidavit which is self-evident and clearly spells out the investigator’s case. “3. That, during investigation, the role of accused/ appellant Vishal Ginda Sukh Vishal (A-10) emerged as the person who was fully aware of the plan of attack on Police Station Qila Lal Singh and who being a member of the terrorist gang and part of the larger conspiracy had funded and facilitated the attack on Police Station Qila Lal Singh, right from the inception and which carried on even after the commission of the offence. He had provided logistics support, shelter, and finances to the shooters Jatinder Singh @ Khamb (A-3) and Joban Preet Singh @ Joban @ Billa (A-11), on the directions of Mannu Aghwan (WA-5). THE ROLE PLAYED BY APPELLANT BEFORE THE ATTACK AND EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I. That appellant /accused Vishal Ginda (A-10) in December 2022, went to Kuwait for construction work, where he met wanted accused 2 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 Mannu Agwan @Jassa Purtgal @ Jassa Jatt (WA-5), who is an active member of Babbar Khalsa International (BKI). They became good friends and remained in contact through apps like BoloHi, WhatsApp and Instagram ID Kaalinaagnii. He maintained communication with BKI operatives via WhatsApp, Instagram, and group chats, keeping direct links with Mannu Agwan (WA-5), Maninder Singh @ Billa (WA-8), Akashdeep Singh @ Bazz (A-12). Mannu Agwan (WA-5) told accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) about his role in organizing bomb explosions, extortion, targeting police stations/government offices in Punjab and persuaded accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) to help by handling money transactions secused/sppellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) to arrested accused- cum Mannu Agwan (WA-S) Auther introduced shooters Joban Jeet Bingh (A-11), Jatinder Singh (A-3) and foreign based wanted accused BKI operatives Maninder Singh Bille (WA 9). Harpreet Singh Happy Pasian (WA-4) and told him that they are trusted BKI operatives. (Reference: para no. 17.19 at page no. 50 of chargesheet. EVIDENCE: (2) Analysis of CDR and WhatsApp of phone no. of Vishal Ginda proves the fact that he was in touch with A-3 and A-11 before the commission of crime. Call frequency of accused appellant Vishal Ginda A-10, M. No. 8264514254 (TSP- JIO Punjab), 7717321745 (TSP-Airtel Punjab) with co- accused A-3 and A-11 is as mentioned below: Co-accused M. No. IDs First Call Last Call Total Calls Jatinder Singh @ Khamb (A-3) 90418xxxxx 02.04.2025 02.04.2025 06 Joban Jeet Singh @ Billa (A-11) 86994xxxxx 29.03.2025 31.03.2025 03 (3) The bank account statement of accused Vishal Ginda has been taken on record to prove the transactions. III. That, on the directions of wanted accused Mannu Agwan Jansa Purtgal (WA-5), accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) had transferred amount of 3,700/- to co-accused Gursewak Singh IA-9) through UPI transaction. Accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) had received 4,289.96/- from wanted accused Mannu Agwan (WA-5) through "Remitly". Out of which, accused Gursewak Singh (A-9) had withdrawn 3000/- from an ATM at Mehta Chowk in the morning of 05.04.2025 and gave to the shooters Jatinder Singh @ Khamb (A 3) and Joban Jeet Singh @ Billa (A- 11). (Reference: para no. 17.34 at page no. 72 of chargesheet). EVIDENCE: 3 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 (1) Disclosure statement of accused appellant Vishal Ginda and co- accused Jatinder Singh (A-3), Jobanjeet Singh (A-11) and Gursewak Singh (A-9) proves the stated transaction. (2) The bank account statement of accused appellant Vishal Ginda and Gursewak Singh (A-9) has been taken on record to prove the transactions. (3) The Audio conversation between Gursewak and Jassa Purtugal @ mannu Aghwan in which Jass Purtugal has assured Gursewak about payment of hosting A-3 and A-11. Rs.3700 was transferred. (Reference: Page 65 of point 5 in the table of chargesheet) THE ROLE PLAYED BY ACCUSED/APPELLANT AFTER THE ATTACK AND EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM ARE AS MENTIONED BELOW:- IV. That, on 07.04.2025 in the morning, Jatinder Singh (A-3) using his foreign number, called wanted accused Mannu Agwan (WA-5), who directed both of them (shooters A-3 and A-11) to go to house of accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) at Nakodar, Punjab. On 07.04.2025 after committing the offence both shooters A-3 and A-11 went to the shop of accused appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) at Nakodar. On arrival accused appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) took the shooters i.e. Jatinder Singh (A-3) and Joban Jeet Singh (A-11) to Kunal Enterprise (Money Transfer Franchise of Western Union) and withdrew cash 26,000/- out of 50,000/-, which were received by him from Mannu Agwan (WA-5) through Western Union Money Transfer. Rs.25,000/- cash was given to the shooter Joban Jeet Singh (A-11) by accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A- 10). The relevant entry in the Transaction Record register at Kunal Enterprise and statements of bank account has been taken on record as evidence. (Reference: para no. 17.62 and 17.63 at page no. 97 & 125. of chargesheet) EVIDENCE: (1) Disclosure statements of accused appellant Vishal Ginda and co- accused Jatinder Singh (A-3) and Jobanjeet Singh (A-11) proves their meeting at Nakodar and receiving money at Kunal Enterprise. (2) Further, statement of Proprietor, Kunal Enterprise (Money transfer franchise of Western Union) has been recorded which will prove transactions of Rs. 570/- dated 05.04.2025 and Rs. 1,000/- and 25,000/- dated 07.04.2025, made by appellant A-10, for which he levied service charges of Rs. 260/-. A-10 had come with two individuals. He stated that he can identify these two individuals. (3) Further, Money Transfer Register of Kunal Enterprise with relevant entries and Certified copy of Aadhar Card (9177 7434 5881) of Vishal Ginda (A-10) have been taken on record from Proprietor, Kunal Enterprise as evidence. VI. That since A-11 had already destroyed his mobile phone when they were on their way to A-10 so on meeting A-10 accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-101 took them to mobile shop in the name of "Mobile Hub", located at Adda Mahetpur, near Punjab National Bank, Nakodar and 4 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 purchased Mobile phone POCO M6 (6GB/128GB) Orion Blue, as refurbished smartphone worth Rs. 7,000/- through UPI transaction made by accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) (Reference: para no. 17.65 at page no. 99 of chargesheet) VII. That, then accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) took them to "Puri Shoes Store", at Adda Mahetpur, Nakodar, where they purchased 02 pairs of Sports Shoes and accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) paid 2,600/- through UPI, for the same. Examination of Proprietor of "Puri Shoes Store", proved the said purchase. (Reference: para no. 17.66 at page no. 99 of chargesheet). VIII. That accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) himself accompanied by A-3 & A-11 disposed off the clothes and shoes belonging to Joban Jeet Singh (A-11) and Jatinder Singh (A-3) (which they were wearing at the time of grenade attack) near the Nakodar Railway Line, thereby destroying cogent evidence. Then accused/appellant Vishal Ginda dropped Jatinder Singh (A-3) and Joban Jeet Singh (A-11) at Nakodar Railway Station on his motorcycle, from where Jatinder Singh (A-3) and Joban Jeet Singh (A-11) went to Pune, Maharashtra via Delhi & Mumbai. (Reference: para no. 17.67 at page no. chargesheet). 100 of chargesheet). IX. That, Jatinder Singh (A-3) and Joban Jeet Singh (A-11) collected Rs. 10,000/- in cash from a shopkeeper in Pune, into whose account, Rs. 10,000/- were transferred by accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10). (Reference: para no. 17.68 at page no. 100 and 101 of chargesheet). 4. That, in addition to the above-mentioned evidence, following technical evidence prove the above stated role of accused appellant Vishal Ginda: Sr. No. Description 1. Digital Forensic Data Extraction Report No. CFSL/DELHI/1777/CFD/431/25 dated 27.08.2025, providing data extraction report of mobile phone of Vishal Ginda @ Sukh @ Vishal Bhullar (A-10) and others 2. CDR/IPDR analysis of mobile number of Vishal Ginda (A-10) 3. Mobile Forensic analysis report of mobile phone of Vishal Ginda (A-10) Accused appellant A-10 was in constant touch with other co-accused before and after the terror attack. Call frequency of accused appellant Vishal Ginda A-10, M. No. 82645xxxxx (TSP- JIO Punjab), 77173xxxxx (TSP- Airtel Punjab) with other co-accused is as mentioned below: Co- accused M. No. IDs First Call Last Call Total Native Calls Social Media Apps Chat VoIP Jatinder Singh @ 9041852618 02.04.2025 02.04.2025 06 - - 5 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 Khamb (A-3) Joban Jeet Singh @ Billa (A- 11) 8699417197 29.03.2025 31.03.2025 03 - - Akashde ep @ Bazz (A- 12) 9103890025 18.02.2025 21.04.2025 02 (Not Answered Found in UFDR) - - +491521949 4454 (Whatsapp) 19.04.2025 20.04.2025 - Logs found UFDR Data 08 (Wha tsapp ) Karambi r Singh Sewak @ Kulla (A-13) 7973774162 05.02.2025 07.03.2025 17 - - Gurpreet @ Gopi (A-6) 6010704780 1 (Whatsapp) 01.04.2025 02.04.2025 - - 14 (Wha tsapp ) Jassa Purtgal (WA-5) @ Jasa Jaat 4915213708 949 (Whatsapp) - - - Logs found UFDR Data - 6. That from the above averments, it is clear to mention that accused/appellant Vishal Ginda (A-10) was fully aware of the entire plan of attack on Police Station Qila Lal Singh, before and after the terror attack and was regularly in touch with the Operatives of BKI. He, out of his free will, performed the role assigned to him in the entire episode.” 9. A perusal of the above said reply and reference to the evidence collected so far prima facie point towards appellant’s involvement in carrying out the RPG attack. He not only provided logistic support and firearms but also gave them money which was required for further transit and also supported them for their safe exit. 10. In a case when terrorists or anti National activists plan to attack or create terror, it is not that only that person is responsible who actually carries out the attack, there are a lot of people who are providing logistics and financial support, transmit other vital informations and all that information is necessary to carry out such attacks. As such even if the role is small, this Court cannot lost sight of the fact that the attack would not have taken place if 6 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 such role had not been carried out. In the present case also, there is prima facie evidence of appellant providing logistic support. 11. Given the above, considering the serious nature of the attack to create terror by attacking a police station with rocket propelled grenade attack, does not entitle the appellant for any bail at this stage. 12. A perusal of the impugned order vide which bail was rejected does not suffer from any infirmity and calls for no interference. 13. In UOI Rep. by Insp. of NIA v. Barakathullah, [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011; 2024 INSC 452, May 22, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division having received a credible information that the office bearers, members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization have been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu, by establishing State Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai and also offices in various districts of Tamil Nadu and that through their frontal Organizations like Campus Front of India, National Women’s Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology, and that the frontal organizations and PFI were involved in the recruitment of members to various prescribed terrorist organizations, passed an order on 16th September 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub- section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIA Act’), directing the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of the said case. In view of the said order, an FIR being RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for the offences under Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “UAPA”). [22]. In the instant case, we are satisfied from the chargesheet as also the other material/documents relied upon by the appellant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, previous criminal history of the respondents as mentioned in the charge-sheet, the period of custody undergone by the respondents being hardly one and half years, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material collected during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. We are conscious of the legal position that we should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has 7 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRA-D-206-2026 been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside. 14. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 15. Appeal stands dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 22.05.2026 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO 8 JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.22 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh