Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. Sandhawalia, Rajesh Bhardwaj, JJ.
Chandeep Singh @ Gabbar Singh – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRA-D-148-2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-09-2023
Bail - National Investigation Agency Act - Sections 304, 153-A, 120-B IPC, 13, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 23 of UAPA Act, 1967, Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a bail application under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dismissing his bail application. The charges against him included serious offenses under various sections of the IPC, UAPA Act, and Explosive Substance Act. The trial court denied bail based on the gravity of the offenses, the appellant's association with co-accused, and the potential influence on witnesses and evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier dismissal of the bail application was not a bar for fresh consideration. It noted the slow progress of the trial and the lack of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the serious charges. The court emphasized the need to apply its mind to examine the entire record to determine if a prima facie case is made out against the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's eligibility for bail, the gravity of the charges, the progress of the trial, and the sufficiency of evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the earlier dismissal of the bail application did not preclude fresh consideration. It emphasized the duty of the court to examine the entire record to determine if a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The court also considered the slow progress of the trial and the lack of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the serious charges.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and granted the appellant regular bail, noting the lack of substantial evidence linking him to the serious charges and the slow progress of the trial. The appellant was directed to report to the local police station at specified intervals.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present appeal, filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, the 2008 Act'), is directed against the order dated 12.01.2023 whereby the bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge, NIA Court, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab in RC No.20/2019/NIA/DLI dated 23.09.2019 arising out of FIR No.280 dated 05.09.2019. The said FIR had been lodged under Sections 304, 153-A and 120-B IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the 'UAPA Act') and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, initially lodged at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran. The FIR thereafter was lodged by the NIA on 23.09.2019 on the information being received by the Central Government on account of the gravity of the offence and the national and international linkages which were required to be looked into by the NIA.
2. The applicant-Chandeep Singh @ Gabbar Singh (A-4), though not named in the FIR, had been arrested at a later stage of the investigation in the case of 15.09.2019 by the Punjab Police due to his associated role and accordingly, has been held not entitled for concession of bail by the learned Special Judge. The reasoning which weighed with the learned Special Judge to dismiss the bail application was on the ground that on an earlier occasion, the bail of the applicant had been dismissed on 08.06.2020 and an appeal preferred before this Court bearing CRA-D-339-2020 had been dismissed on 11.12.2020 (Annexure A-6). The reason given was that there was no change of circumstances for filing his application for the second time. The bail application was rejected though it had been pointed out that in the intervening period on 14.01.2022 (Annexure A-4) bail had been granted to the co-accused, Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh (A-8).
3. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that this Court while granting bail to Amarjeet Singh, exercised its powers being a Constitutional Court and therefore, the present applicant was not entitled for the benefit of bail, in view of the dismissal of his appeal at an earlier point of time. Reliance was also placed upon the charge-sheet filed that the appellant had met with various other co-accused from the year 20132014 and had been initiated into radicalization by Bikramjit Singh @ Bikkar Panjwar @ Bikkar Baba (A-9) and regular meetings were taking place and there was an attendance in the religious events and he had become a member of the terrorist gang founded by co-accused for committing terrorist acts. After the bomb-blast had taken place on 04.09.2014 due to which FIR had been lodged, he had informed Amarjeet Singh about the incident and rushed to meet the co-accused, Harjit Singh (A-2) and Gurjant Singh (A-3) at the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Tarn Taran. Resultantly, it was held that he was inclined to Pro-Khalistani ideology and was sharing posts on myriad issues relating to Khalistan and Referendum 2020 and using the social media platform for spreading propaganda against Government of India. Since a charge had already been framed against him on 03.12.2020, finding a prima facie case against him under Sections 120-B, 153-A of IPC, Sections 13, 18, 20 & 23 of UAPA Act and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 the Trial Court choose not to grant the benefit of bail. Observations were also made that he being a local resident could influence witnesses and may tamper with evidence and may flee from justice if released on bail. Keeping in view the rigors of Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA Act, the relief had been denied.
4. Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was in custody since 15.09.2019 and a period of almost 4 years has passed and out of the 120 witnesses which were to be examined, only 14 have been examined and in the absence of any incriminating material recovered from him and since co-accused, Amarjeet Singh had been granted the benefit of ba
AI
The duty of the court to examine the entire record to determine if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, especially in cases involving serious charges under special enactments like the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and its application in granting bail to the accused durin....
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....
Bail under UAPA Section 43-D(5) denied despite over five years' custody; prima facie material including bank transactions shows direct terror funding involvement, trial progress outweighs delay.
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
(1) Bail – Statutory restrictions, per se, do not oust jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of Constitution of India.(2) Mere holding of certain lit....
The court ruled that prima facie evidence justifies the rejection of bail for accused involved in serious offenses under UAPA, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights with public safety.
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
