JUDGMENT :

RAMESH KUMARI, J. 

CM No. 36926 of 2025

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

CRA-D-1236 of 2025

1. Appellant-Baljit Kaur assails the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by appellant seeking regular bail in respect of a case arising out of FIR No. 8 dated 17.02.2025 under Sections 109, 324(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023 and Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Sections 13,16,17, 18, 18(B) and 20 of the Unlawful Activity of Prevention Act, (for short ‘UAPA’), registered at Police Station Kotli Surat, Malhi.

2. The translated gist of the FIR recorded on the statement of Sub Inspector Jagjit Singh, reads as under:-

“Today, when I was present at Adda Shikar Machhiyan in search of anti-social persons, a secret informer informed me that today at around 08:10 PM, some unknown motorcyclists dropped some explosive substance at the house of Sukhdev Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of Raimal with an intention of kill him and thereby caused an explosion, which resulted in damage to his house. Since, by doing so these unknown persons have committed offence punishable u/ss 109, 324(4) BNS & Sections 3, 4, 5 of the EXPLOSIVE ACT 1908, intimation is being sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. Sd/- Jasjit Singh, SI/SHO, P.S. Kotli Surat Malli.”

3. Short reply by way of affidavit of Shri Joga Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dera Baba Nanak, Police District Batala has been filed by learned State counsel today in Court, which is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is nowhere named in the FIR and is sought to be nominated on the basis of a string of disclosure statements. It has further been submitted that, in any case, during the course of investigation, nothing incriminatory was recovered from her possession.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient evidence has been collected to show the complicity of the appellant. Learned State counsel pointed out that the appellant is the mother of co-accused Ravinder Singh. Co-accused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti are associates of co-accused Ravinder Singh. The appellant knew co-accused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti as they visited the house of co-accused Ravinder Singh son of the appellant in connection with a criminal conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy was discussed in the house of the appellant and her residence served as a meeting point and safe shelter for hatching a conspiracy where a plan of throwing grenade at the house of Pappu Jaintipuria was discussed and finalized.

6. We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.

7. The entire case against the appellant is based on disclosure statement of co-accused Mohit son of Jaspal, who in his disclosure statement stated that:-

“On 15.01.2025, I was at my house when my neighbour Ravinder Singh came to me and said that one of his friends who had returned from abroad was to be met and asked me to accompany him. I sat on Ravinder Singh’s black Splendor motor cycle and we proceeded towards village NawaPind. On the way, Ravinder Singh told me that we had to throw a bomb at the house of Pappu Jaintipuria, a liquor trader, in village Jaintipur. I became frightened but Ravinder Singh assured me that there was nothing to fear, no one would come to know, and that we would get Rs. 20000/- to Rs. 25,000/- in return. I only had to drive the motor cycle. I agreed.”

He further disclosed that he was called by co-accused Ravinder Singh at his house where his brother, sister and mother were already present. In their presence, he planned to execute the plan of throwing grenade attack. He further stated that the family of Ravinder Singh was aware about the co