Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.
Lakhveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRL.A. 471 of 2025
Decided On : 25-08-2025
Key Points: - The bail standard under UAPA Section 43D(5) requires assessing whether allegations are prima facie true and whether there are reasonable grounds; the court emphasized that bail is an exception and that allegations must be prima facie true for denial of bail (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court reviews factors for prima facie belief, including nature and gravity of charges, evidentiary strength, flight risk, and potential tampering with witnesses; it reiterates established bail considerations under UAPA and precedents (e.g., Amarmani Tripathi, etc.) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses compliance with informing the arrest grounds under Article 22(1) and Section 43B/UAPA, referencing Pankaj Bansal v. UoI and Vihaan v. Haryana, and notes prospective and retrospective aspects of written grounds of arrest; it ultimately found the arrest compliant in this case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court notes that Section 43D(5) curtails bail rights for offences under Chapters IV and VI, with additional conditions and extended investigation timelines (Modified CrPC) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The chargesheet and recovered arms from the appellant’s premises along with linked conspiratorial connections to Bambiha Gang and Arshdeep Singh Gill form the prima facie basis to deny bail; the court dismisses the appeal for bail (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that the court should not conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage; it should consider prima facie grounds and broad probabilities rather than merits (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency [“NIA”] Act, 2008, to assail the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [“Trial Court”] in NIA case bearing RC No. 38/2022/NIA/DLI titled NIA vs Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh Dalla Etc., whereby the bail application of the Appellant was dismissed.
2. The present case emanates from the registration of the NIA case bearing RC No. 38/2022/NIA/DLI for offences under Sections 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [“IPC”] and Sections 18 /18B/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [“ UAPA ”] by the NIA, pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (CTCR Division).
3. Case initiated by the Respondent/NIA is premised on the following information received by it through credible sources:
i. An alleged conspiracy was hatched by the members of a criminal syndicate/gangs based in India and abroad to carry out terrorist acts in the state of Delhi as well as other parts of the country by executing targeted killings using lethal firearms and explosives.
ii. Further information was received that in order to collect funds and strengthen their logistical resources, the accused persons have engaged in smuggling and said aforementioned accused persons have engaged in smuggling and trafficking of illegal arms, ammunition, explosives, narcotics and are also involved in other criminal activities such as extortion, contract killings, kidnapping for ransom and laundering these funds into various businesses operated through their associates under pseudonymous identities. It is alleged that for these purposes, they are also involved in the creation and use of fake and forged identity documents and in order to further commit terrorist activities and expand their cadre, they are recruiting impressionable youth.
iii. The sources of the Respondent/NIA had also brought to light that to extend their reach and spread panic among the public they are sensationalizing their terrorist acts through cyberspace and social media. Further, the Respondent/NIA were also seized with information that these accused individuals are operating from foreign countries and from jails located in different Indian states and are directing their operatives and associates to carry out such terrorist acts.
iv. During the investigation into the aforementioned information received by Respondent/NIA, it came to light that, to increase their area of influence, the members of the gang came in contact with extremists, especially with the associates of Pro-Khalistan organizations in Indian jails and abroad, and other such related supporters who aided in arranging sophisticated weapons. According to the Respondent/NIA, it was further established that the members of the syndicate/gang are in touch with Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, who was based in Canada and was a Designated Individual Terrorist, who was associated with Harshdeep Singh Nijjar, 'Chief‟ of Khalistan Tiger Force.
v. It is alleged that the Appellant was active in procuring and supplying illegal weapons, and vehicles for execution of conspiracy and committing terror activities. The Appellant was discovered to have been the major logistics support of the Bambiha gang and acted as a major supplier to the Bambiha Gang and harbourer of its members.
vi. It is alleged that the Appellant is a close associate to the gangster Chhotu Ram @ Bhat who he used to provide with his Mahindra Scorpio No. PB 30W 2389 to transport weapons and gang members from one place to other.
vii. The Respondent/NIA conducted a raid in the house of the Appellant on 21.02.2023 during which illegal weapons, empty magazines and ammunitions were recovered from the house of the Appellant, including 01 revolver (.32 bore), 2 pistols (.32 bore), 01 pistol (.45 bore), 01 pump action gun (.32 bore), DBBL Gun (12 bore),
AI
Bail under UAPA requires proving allegations are prima facie true; substantial evidence against the accused justified the dismissal of bail application.
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
The court established that under the UAPA, knowledge of a person's terrorist activities is crucial for liability under Section 19, and the restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) apply when there a....
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a surface analysis of probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail, and the requirement for rea....
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
The court upheld the rejection of bail, finding prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in arms smuggling under the UAPA, despite his claims of insufficient evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
