IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON PRONOUNCED OR FULL

06.03.2026 01.04.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 01.04.2026 Rohit Basra ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Section

57 16.03.2025 Maqsudan, Jalandhar 3, 4,5 of Explosive Substance Act, 25, 27 of Arms Act and 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-

B, 20 of UAPA Act, 61 of BNS Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court BA-5152-2025 Date of Decision 10.07.2025

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10.07.2025, the appellant had come before this Court by filing the present appeal, seeking bail in the FIR mentioned above.

2. Per paragraph 14 of the appeal, the appellant has no criminal antecedents.

3. The case set up by NIA is that on the intervening night of March 15/16, 2025 one accused Amritpreet Singh took Hardik Kamboj outside the house of the complainant Navdeep Singh @ Roger Sandhu where he lodged the hand grenade towards the balcony of the residential house, however, the hand grenade did not explode.

4. Counsel for the appellant seeks bail on the ground that the appellant has been arraigned as an accused based on the disclosure statement of co-accused.

5. State counsel opposes the bail on the grounds that the appellant had procured three pistols and five magazines from co-accused and delivered the same to Amritpreet Singh @

Amrit and Dheeraj Kumar and in the opinion of the State, it is not a case where bail should be granted.

6. An analysis of the above arguments would lead to the following outcome.

7. It shall be appropriate to refer to the facts of the case from the reply filed by State counsel which reads as follows:

“3. That it is respectfully submitted that in compliance to the Order dated 13.11.2025 passed by this Hon'ble High Court, the deponent has discussed the matter with the SHO of Police Station Maqsudan and perused the record. The factual matrix of the case is that on 5.03.2025 complainant Sh. Navdeep Singh @ Roger Sandhu son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Raipur Rasulpur, Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar (Rural) made a statement to S.I. Balbir Singh, SHO, PS: Maqsudan on allegations that he is engaged as a YouTube Blogger and has established an online identity under the name "Roger Sandhu." He has set up a recording studio within his residential premises. He further stated that he produces and broadcasts content on YouTube.com, including roasting. He is currently residing in the village Raipur Rasulpur, which is the native village of his in-laws. He has been living there for the past 3-4 years and has constructed his own residential house. On the intervening night of 15/16.03.2025, he retired to bed after taking his evening meal. The following morning, upon proceeding to the balcony as per his usual routine, he observed a rounded metallic object lying therein. Feeling threatened by its unexplained presence, he immediately contacted Police Station Maqsudan to report the incident. He has alleged that the aforementioned act was committed by one Shahzad Bhatti, who maintains a social media account under the name "Shehzad Bhatti." It is stated that Shahzad Bhatti had previously approached him with a proposal to participate in a live-streamed match, with the intent of increasing viewer engagement and receiving digital gifts. Upon his refusal to participate, Shahzad Bhatti purportedly began engaging in acts of digital extortion. Subsequently, Shahzad Bhatti allegedly initiated a campaign of false accusations against him and his associates, including claims of propagating content offensive to Islam. It is further alleged that Shahzad Bhatti issued threats to his life and that of his family. He has specifica