IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 DATE OF DECISION:SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 Arshad Ali @ Munshi ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

***

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The appellant-Arshad Ali @ Munshi, has challenged the order dated February 27, 2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, exercising the power of Special Court, whereby his bail application in FIR No.02 of 05.02.2020 registered under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 10,13,18,19,20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, District SAS Nagar, Mohali has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities under UAPA but there was no recovery from the appellant including any incriminating material which could connect the appellant to any offence, more so, to any offence under UAPA. Apart from the purported statements of chance witnesses-Kulwinder Singh @ Kala, Amrik Singh and Nishant Sharma, there is no evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the appellant to commission of any crime. Furthermore, he submits that only 01 out of 40 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution despite passage of more than 05 years by the appellant in custody.

3. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the appellant was involved in anti national activities. Based on secret information received by Harinderdeep Singh, the then DSP SSOC, SAS Nagar, a case under FIR No.0002 dated 05.02.2020 was registered against the accused persons namely Dharminder Singh @ Guggni, Ashish Kumar, Javed, Parveen and Sushil along with Arshad Ali @ Munshi (present appellant). He submits that upon investigation, it was found that one Ashish Kumar who had been recently arrested by the Punjab police was a close associate of the main accused Dharminder Singh @ Guggni who is confined in Tihar Jail, Delhi being a member of Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF). The said organisation is banned under Sections 2(1) (m) and 35 of UAPA. Arshad Ali @ Munshi-appellant supplied weapons to accused Ashish Kumar who then supplied the same to the main accused Dharminder Singh @ Guggni. The said weapons are being used by the pro-Khalistani elements and criminal gangs in Punjab which disturb peace and tranquility in the State. The appellant is the resident of U.P and he along with Javed and Parveen had been illegally supplying the weapons to Ashish Kumar for onwards supply to Dharminder Singh @ Guggni. The said weapons are used for commission of serious offences like murders, dacoity, loots and extortion in Punjab including target killings of prominent leaders. Therefore, in view of the gravity and nature of the offence, he should not be enlarged on bail. Since all accused had the common intention of committing terrorist act/s, none of them should be released on bail.

5. He relies on decision of Apex Court dated February 07, 2024 in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Pun