CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M) JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART PRONOUNCED OR FULL UPLOADED ON 12.05.2026 19.05.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 19.05.2026 Gurjit Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 265 17.12.2024 Islamabad, Amritsar 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, Sections 303(2), 317(2), 61(2) of BNS and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court BA/10171/2025 CNR No.PBAS010244982025 Date of Decision 29.11.2025 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 29.11.2025, the appellant had come before this Court by filing the present appeal, seeking bail in the FIR mentioned above. 2. As per custody certificate dated 11.05.2026, the appellant has the following criminal antecedents: - Sr. No. FIR Dated Police Station Sections 1. 109 02.07.2023 Gharinda 307, 326, 325, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC 2 74 26.12.2024 SSOC 25 of Arms Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 ES, 21, 23(C), 29 of NDPS Act 3. 4 02.01.2026 Gharinda 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act JYOTI 2026.05.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M)  3. The facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 02.05.2026 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Amritsar. “3. FACTS OF THE CASE: That the deponent humbly submits that the facts of the present case are that on 17.12.2024, 'SI Jasbir Singh, SHO PS Islamabad, Amritsar along with other police officials in connection with patrolling and in search of bad elements was present at Kabir Park, Amritsar. There he received information from ASI Narinder Singh, PS Islamabad, Amritsar that an explosion sound had been heard outside, which had been caused with some explosive substance by an unknown person, wherein no information of any loss to life or property had yet been received. Therefore, based on this information, the present FIR No.265, dated 17.12.2024, under Section 3,4,5 of the Explosive Substance Act, PS Islamabad, Amritsar was registered. 4. That after registration of the present case, the investigation was commenced by the Investigating Officer SI Jasbir Singh, SHO PS Islamabad, Amritsar, who along with the Forensic Expert inspected the scene of crime. The soil sample, 02 metal pieces and 02 ring live metal (pin) lifted from the place of occurrence by the Forensic Expert were taken into police possession in accordance with law. In addition to this, one almirah and chair of the police station which had got burnt in this explosion, were also taken into police possession in accordance with law. The rough site plan was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 180 BNSS. 5. That after sometime of the explosion, a news was published on social media and electronic media, wherein the responsibility of this explosion was taken by one 'Jeewan Fauji Group' and this news is reproduced as under: “Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh. Today, the grenade thrown in Islamabaad Police Station of Amritsar, I Jeevan Fauzi take responsibility for it. All this has been done to tell the police what they, along with the governments, have done to Sikhs and their families from 1984 till now and what they will do further. The answer will be given in this manner. The houses which this force got vacated from Sikhs, their own houses will also not remain. Those who have raised the walls of police stations should also remain ready, answer will be given. As far as the matter of removing turbans is concerned, whichever policeman now touches the turban of a Sikh, special attention will be kept on him; the responsibility of himself and his family will be his own." Babbar Khalsa. JYOTI 2026.05.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M)  6. That during the course of investigation, a search of the nearby area was conducted and to ensure that no atmosphere of fear spreads among the public, the area around the police station was searched. CCTV cameras installed outside houses and shops were checked. The footage of the camera of Vansh Flour Mills situated near the police station was developed and taken into police possession along with a certificate under section 65B(4) (c). In the CCTV camera it is seen that two youngsters come on a Splendor motorcycle black in colour and stop the motorcycle near Vansh Flour Mills and the youngster sitting as pillion rider at came to the front seat of the motorcycle and the motorcycle rider takes out gloves from his pocket and wears them on his hands and taking the article wrapped in a polythene walks and throws it near the wall of the police station. Within a few seconds it blasts. As per the video footage, time was early morning at 3:06 AM on 17.12.2024.” 4. The appellant seeks bail on the ground of custody as well as on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was arrested merely based on disclosure statement and there is no other evidence against him and he was arrested in the present case on production warrant and no loss of life was caused to anyone. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the evidence is sufficient and appellant is not entitled for bail. Further, there is criminal history which would disentitle him for bail. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record, including the reply and its analysis, which would lead to the following outcome. 8. As per custody certificate dated 11.05.2026, the custody of the appellant in the above captioned FIR is 01 year, 03 months and 22 days. 9. Given above, the appellant is not entitled for bail on custody alone. However, the appellant also seeks bail on merits. 10. It shall be appropriate to refer following paragraphs of reply dated 02.05.2026, which reads as follows: “14. That the deponent humbly submits that during the course of investigation of the present case, the call details record of mobile number 79860-xxxx, 86995-xxxx and 82843-xxxx of the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh, which were provided by SHO PS SSOC, Amritsar were obtained. In addition to this, the IP addresses of the mobile numbers +120930xxxxx, 013502xxxx and 923258xxxxx, whose callers were in constant JYOTI 2026.05.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M)  contact with the co-accused Gurjit Singh, were obtained. The resolved details of the virtual number +191649xxxx being used in WhatsApp Business by the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh, were also obtained. As per which, it revealed that the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh was in contact with these international numbers: RSS-+120930xxxx, S-+135021xxxx, Gill- 971553xxxx, Guri Makhi2-966570xxxx, 966506xxxx, 923264xxxx, Saima Rajput-923258xxx, Kala-kala-9230947xxxx, Saj-601167xxxx, Don 447424xxxxx, Waheguru Jo meher karo-4474053xxxx, G-4473846xxxx, SD- 3519332xxxxx, Amrit-60105xxxx, Kaka PRA-27787xxxx, VMK-191655xxxx, Kala-Kala-191649xxxx, 191649xxxxx, Apna-17787xxxx, S-13502xxxxx, Raja don ya sabri-13502xxxxx.” “15. That the deponent humbly submits that during the course of investigation of the present case, the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh was shown the above mentioned resolved numbers and he disclosed that he had conversation from his WhatsApp business number +191649xxxxx on the above mentioned numbers DON-447424xxxx, Waheguru Ji Mehar Karo- +447405xxxxx and G+44738xxxx, who had directed him to make a grenade attack on Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar and had given them allurement to give handsome amount after attack to both of them i.e. present appellant- accused Gurjit Singh and co-accused Baljeet Singh. The co-accused Baljeet Singh had also disclosed the same facts. 16. That the deponent humbly submits that during the course of investigation of the present case, as per the resolved list of numbers obtained from vitual number +191649xxxxx of WhatsApp Business number of the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh, the IMEI numbers of the above mentioned virtual numbers +447424xxxx of DON, +4474053xxxx if Waheguru Ji Mehar Karo and G+44738xxxxx were obtained through Technical Cell and it was found that all these numbers are inter connected with one another. 17. That the deponent humbly submits that after completion of police remand, the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh and co-accused Baljeet Singh were again produced before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar and were sent to judicial custody on 19.01.2025. 18. That the deponent humbly submits that during the course of investigation of the present case, the ownership of above motorcycle recovered from the present appellant-accused Gurjit Singh was verified. The number of this motorcycle was found PB46-L-9528 and registered in the name of Ramandeep Kaur W/o Jatinder Singh R/o Village Dhota, PO Chak Kare Khan, District Tarn Taran, who identified the above said motorcycle and JYOTI 2026.05.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M)  stated that on 20.12.2023 the above said motorcycle was taken by her brother-in-law Harjinder Singh who had gone to Baba Shekh Fata, Jandiala Guru, Amritsar, from where, this motorcycle was stolen, but they did not lodge any complaint in this respect.” 11. A perusal of the above clearly points out the existence of prima facie evidence connecting the appellant with the allegations, based on which he was arrested. Considering the serious nature of allegations viz-a-viz the criminal antecedents, appellant is not entitled for bail at this stage neither on custody nor on merits. Even otherwise, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dismissing the bail. Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 12. 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 Divisionhaving received a credible information that the office bearers,members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremistIslamic organization have been spreading its extremist ideology acrossTamil 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 conspirefor committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terroristactivities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology,and that the frontal organizations and PFI were involved in therecruitment 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 ofthe National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to asthe ‘NIA Act’), directing the National Investigation Agency to take upinvestigation of the said case. In view of the said order, an FIR beingRC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 19.09.2022 againstthe present respondents and other members and office bearers ofPFI for the offences under Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPCand 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 alsothe other material/documents relied upon by the appellant that thereare reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against therespondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained inthe proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasingthe respondents on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and gravityof the alleged offences, previous criminal history of the respondentsas mentioned in the charge-sheet, the period of custody undergoneby the respondents being hardly one and half years, the severityof punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima faciematerial collected JYOTI 2026.05.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-D-500-2026 (O&M)  during the course of investigation, the impugnedorder passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. We areconscious of the legal position that we should be slow in interferingwith the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court,however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bailis found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside. 13. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 14. Appeal dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 19.05.2026 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO JYOTI 2026.05.19 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.