The court ruled that lack of prima facie evidence connecting the appellant to the offense warranted the granting of bail under the UAPA Act.

JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga dismissing his bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 222 dated 4.1.2022 under sections 25(6), 25(7) of the Arms Act, under sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(for short 'the UAPA Act') and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 registered at P.S. Baghapurana.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no prima facie material which would connect the appellant with the commission of offence except the statement made by the co-accused - Lovepreet Singh. There is no discovery of any fact or any article in pursuance to the disclosure statement. He further submits that he did not have any criminal antecedents before his involvement in the instant case and after his arrest in this case, he has been involved in another FIR which was registered 03 days prior to the registration of the instant case i.e. FIR No. 81 dated 28.09.2022 under section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 13, 15, 16 and 18 of the UAPA Act registered at P.S. Arif Ke. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the co-accused- Sukhpreet Kaur has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court in CRM- 19001-2023 in CRA-D-542-2023.

3. Learned State Counsel while referring to the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baghapurana, District Moga submits that it was disclosed by co-accused-Lovepreet Singh that the appellant was also with them on his Activa vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-03-BH- 4313. He was plying the Activa of co-accused Lovepreet Singh so that in case there is barricading, the appellant will inform them. He further submits that after completion of the investigation, challan qua the appellant and other accused had been filed on 1.4.2023, charges had been framed on 20.10.2023 and now the case is fixed for prosecution evidence. He also submits that in view of the serious allegations, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail.

4. Heard.

5. The allegations against the appellant and other co-accused are that they had been receiving arms, ammunition and explosive substances from across the border and had been using the same to indulge in anti-national activities including spreading terror etc. The appellant has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused-Lovepreet Singh that he was travelling on a scooter ahead of the other co-accused to alert them about any barricading by the police.

6. We have perused the material on record including the challan filed by the police. The reference to the applicant in the challan is reproduced hereunder :-

'On the disclosure statement of the above said accused Lovepreet Singh alias Labi, Nirmal Singh alias Nimma, son of Joginder Singh son of Chhota Singh resident of Patti Hardita village Deon, District Bathinda was nominated as accused in the present case vide rapat No. 28 dated 11.1.2022.'

7. The relevant extract from the affidavit filed by the respondents pertaining to the role of the appellant is reproduced below :-

'At that time the petitioner Nirmal Singh @ Nimma was also with them and he was on his Activa vehicle No. PB-03BH-4313. Petitioner was plying to Activa vehicle ahead to the vehicle of Lovepreet Singh etc. so that in case of any barricading, petitioner will provide information to them.'

8. In response to the query of this Court as to whether any recovery had been effected from the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the affidavit filed by the DSP, there does not seem to be any recovery effected from the appellant.

9. It is thus manifest that besides the statement of the co-accused wherein he has stated that the appellant was also travelling ahead of them, there does not seem to be any material to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. There is no recovery from the appell