IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-19.02.2026 Pargat Singh … Appellant versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI.

Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gaganbir Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

RAMESH KUMARI, J

1. Appellant Pargat Singh assails order dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the learned Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant seeking regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.8, dated 17.02.2025 at Police Station Kotli Surat Mallian, Police District Batala, District Gurdspur, Punjab, under Sections 109 and 324(4), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Act, 1908 & Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18(B) and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and offences under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023.

2. The translated gist of the FIR lodged on the statement of SI Jasjit Singh reads as follows:

“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 Sumeer Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Detective Batala with the additional charge of 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 disclosure statement. It has further been submitted that, in any case, the appellant cannot even be connected with any of the ‘call-detail record’ stated to have been collected by the police during the course of investigation.

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 co-accused Vishal Bhatti in his disclosure statement specifically disclosed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was sent by Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha (son of applicant) to Mohit Dhiman in Himachal Pradesh and that said Mohit Dhiman further gave this amount to Vishal Bhatti and that Vishal Bhatti during his disclosure statement nominated the appellant herein. Said Vishal Bhatti in his disclosure statement stated that appellant Pargat Singh gave an amount of Rs.5,000/- to him (Vishal Bhatti).

6. Learned State counsel informed that the appellant Pargat Singh is none-else but father of Ranjodh Singh.

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

8. The entire case against the appellant is based on disclosure statement of Vishal Bhatti. We have perused the disclosure statement of Vishal Bhatti. Vishal Bhatti in third paragraph of his disclosure statement dated 06.03.2025 stated that he had talked with Ranjodh Singh on ‘signal app’ till 24.02.2025 and after that Ranjodh Singh had talked with his father i.e. Pargat Singh (appellant herein) for making payment of Rs.5000/- to him and he was unable to remember the said date of handing over the amount to him and he alleged that the family of Ranjodh Singh i.e. his parents and wife knew about the deeds of Ranjodh Singh.

9. There is no evidence to show that the appellant was ever in touch with a