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

12.03.2026 06.04.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 06.04.2026 Bhupinder Singh ...Appellant Versus National Investigation Agency …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Prashant Parkash, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Khan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Section

141 05.05.2022 Madhuban, Karnal 13, 18, 20 of UAPA Act, 4, 5 of Explosive Substance Act AND

NIA Case No.	Dated	Police Station	Section
RC-24/2022/ NIA/DLI	24.05.2022	Madhuban, Karnal	120-B, 121, 121-A, 122 IPC, 25(1AA) of Arms Act, 13, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 23, 38, 39 of UAPA Act and 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act

Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court BA-1053-2025 Date of Decision 27.08.2025

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Special Judge (NIA), vide order dated 27.08.2025, the appellant had come before this Court by filing the present appeal, seeking bail in the NIA case mentioned above.

2. Per the custody certificate dated 17.01.2026, the appellant has the following criminal antecedents: -

Sr. No. FIR Dated Police Station Sections

1. 58 05.05.2022 Cantt Ferozepur 10, 13, 18, 20 of UAPA Act, 4, 5 of Explosive Act, 25-54-59 of Arms Act, 21/25/61/85/23/29 of NDPS Act

3. The facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated November 18, 2025, filed by National Investigation Agency. On May 5, 2022 based on secret information, the police team at Police Station Madhuban, Haryana, intercepted a vehicle and in search of the vehicle, recovered 3 improvised explosive devices, 1 pistol, 2 magazines, 31 live rounds, 6 mobile phones and Rs.1.30 lacs as cash. At that time, four people occupying the vehicle were Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, Amandeep Singh alias Deepa, Parminder Singh and A4 Bhupinder Singh, the appellant. Based on this recovery, FIR No.141 of 2022 was registered under the Explosives Act, UAPA Act along with the Arms Act.

4. Considering the gravity of the offense, the Government of India transferred the case to the National Investigation Agency which registered RC No. 24 on May 24, 2022.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the appellant is only of being present in the vehicle from where the alleged ammunition was recovered. He further submits that the recovery was from a cavity and as such, it cannot be said that the appellant was aware of what the driver or the owner of the vehicle had contained in the cavity. He submits that because of the concealment, it cannot be said of any culpability. State counsel opposes such argument and submits that all of these persons were transporting the explosives to South India with an objective of spreading terror over there and appellant was fully aware of the concealment of the ammunition and further, there was no reason for him to be present in the vehicle in question.

6. An analysis of the above arguments clearly point out that no doubt the recovery was from the cavity of the vehicle and in general parlance, it is for the driver who has dominion over such vehicle, would be aware of such concealment, but there may be cases where somebody else makes a great secret cavity and trick the driver to take the vehicle, as such it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case and no general standard can be set in this regard. As far as present appellant is concerned, the burden was on him to explain that for what purpose and under what circumstances he was travelling in the vehicle and going to a destination where he had no other reason to go except the stand taken by the National Investigation Agency to deliver the explosives. Thus, for the purpose of bail, there is more than prima facie evidence pointing out the appellant’s culpability about t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document