P&H HC Denies Regular Bail To A Man Accused Of Harbouring And Providing Financial Assistance To Members Of Gangster Goldy Brar’s Network

It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Parwinder Singh @ Pindu v. U.T. Chandigarh in Case Number: CRA-D-1020 of 2024 (O&M) in Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:084786-DB that was reserved on May 22, 2026 and then finally pronounced on July 10, 2026 and uploaded on July 14, 2026 has denied regular bail to a man who was accused of harbouring and providing financial assistance to members of gangster Goldy Brar’s network, who allegedly planned to murder a rival gangster during a court appearance. There has to be zero tolerance for such heinous crimes and that too within the precincts of the court! We thus see that the Court found prima facie material linking the accused to the alleged conspirators and the transfer of funds used to support them. It also thus came as no wonder that the Court choosing court premises for the proposed killing indicated an intention to create fear among the public, bringing the allegations within the stringent bail restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Lapita Banerji for a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Deepak Sibal and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “ The appellant has challenged the order dated July 16, 2024, passed by Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh, whereby his bail application in FIR No.29 of 26.02.2024 registered under Section 25, 54. 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 419, 471, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 17, 18 18-B, 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh has been dismissed.”

As we see, the Division Bench then observes in para 2 that, “Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant has been involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but except for recovery of two mobile phones, no other incriminating material has been alleged to have recovered from him. There was no legally admissible material on record to establish the involvement of appellant with any “designated terrorist” which could even suggest that the accused has committed an offence under the UAPA.”

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 7 that, “The Court had directed the State to file a comprehensive affidavit after filing of the supplementary challan January 15, 2026. Pursuant to the said direction, the State has filed a comprehensive affidavit of Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 8 laying bare that, “Learned counsel for the State submits that appellant accused is involved in anti-national activities. The prosecution’s case is that on the basis of secret information, two boys were apprehended at around 11:45 pm on February 25, 2024, near Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The said boys were riding a white Activa without helmets. Upon enquiry, they revealed their names as Sunny @ Sachin @ Maddy Manchanda and Umang. Upon search being conducted one pistol and a live cartridge was found from the right pocket of Sunny’s trousers and 03 live cartridges were recovered from Umang’s trousers. All the cartridges bore the mark of “KF 7.65” on the back. FIR No.29 was initially registered on February 26, 2024 under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act against Sunny and Umang. Upon disclosure made by both Sunny and Umang, the present appellant-Parwinder Singh @ Pindu along with Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger, Anmolpreet Singh and Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma were arrested. Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger was arrested upon identification by Sunny while taking a stroll near the wall of the parking area of gate of District Court, Sector-43, Chandigarh. One pistol and 02 live cartridges were recovered from him on February 26, 2024.”

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 9 that, “Upon disclosure and identification by Sunny, the present appellant-Parwinder Singh @ Pindu was arrested on February 28, 2024 from TDI City, Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A Verna car bearing registration No.CH01-BP-6918 and two mobile phones (one light grey coloured Apple phone with sim and another Oneplus Skyblue coloured phone with sim) were recovered from him and taken into police custody.”

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 10 that, “On the very same day i.e February 28, 2024, Anmolpreet Singh was arrested from TDI City Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali upon disclosure and identification by Sunny that Anmolpreet was his friend and aide of Goldy Brar.”

As things stands, the Division Bench then reveals in para 11 that, “One Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma was arrested near Counter no. 30, Sector 43 Bus stand on February 29, 2024 also upon secret information and identification by Sunny. One slate colour backpack containing advocate’s dress i.e. black coloured trousers, one black blazer and one white shirt was recovered from her. One mobile phone was recovered from her and taken into police custody. According to prosecution, she also got recovered one pistol and two live cartridges and broken pieces like battery, back body, two parts of touch screen of mobile by Techno Company from the jungle behind ISBT-43, Chandigarh.”

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 12 that, “Upon secret information and identification by Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma, one Baljeet Singh was apprehended from House No.177/1, Phase 3, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) and a mobile phone VIVO (black colour with sim) was recovered from him with a Splender bike. The case of prosecution is that upon instructions from Goldy Brar, co-accused Sunny, Umang and Maya had done recee at the premises of District Courts, Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula on February 12, 2024 with the motive of killing gangster – Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he came for his court hearing. The accused Sunny used to communicate with terrorists like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through his phone on Signal App.”

Do further note, the Division Bench then notes in para 13 that, “The allegation against the appellant is that the mobile phones which were recovered from him were used by him to converse with the terrorists like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through Facebook messenger and the appellant worked as per their instructions. On February 9, 2024 the appellant with the intention of harbouring terrorists had gone to Chandigarh railway station and brought Sunny and Umang (members of Goldy Brar’s gang) to his flat at TDI City, SAS Nagar, Mohali in his Verna car and thereafter shifted them to his friend Anmolpreet’s flat. A sum of Rs.49,900/- was sent by Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan in SBI account of appellant-Parwainder Singh @ Pindu on February 12, 2024 and the same was handed over by him to Sunny and Umang. On February 14, 2024, again the appellant received Rs. 16,000/- from Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan in his SBI account which was handed over to Sunny and Umang.”

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 17 noting that, “As per Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such relief and if the Court, on perusing the case diary or the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such persons are prima facie proved. Section 43-D(6) further stipulates that restrictions for grant of bail specified in Section 43-D(5) would be in addition to the restrictions provided under the Cr.P.C or any other law for the time being in force on granting bail.”

It is also worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 21 that, “In the present case, the appellant has undergone an actual sentence of 02 years and 05 months and this is not a case where the State has not been able to attribute any specific role, prima facie, to the appellant indicating his involvement with any offence under the UAPA. It cannot be said, at this stage, that no incriminating material has been collected by the State connecting the appellant to the intent of striking terror.”

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 23 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “If a conspiracy is hatched with a ‘designated terrorist’ like Goldy Brar to murder a person albeit a gangster within the precincts of a court which is considered to be the ‘Temple of Justice’ then such an act would definitely create terror or would intend to create terror in the minds of the people of the country. Inside Court premises also, if a person is not secure, then the ordinary citizens at large would be naturally shocked and terrorised. It is apparent that the place of the commission of the act was chosen with the intent of striking terror in the minds of the people.”

Equally significant and as a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 24 that, “In the light of above discussion, prima facie, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the minds of the people or any section of the people of India. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the appellant – Parwinder Singh @Pindu.”

For sake of clarity, the Division Bench then clarifies in para 25 stating that, “It is clarified that the observations made through the instant order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present appeal seeking regular bail and that the same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 26 that, “The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck the right chord by denying regular bail to a man who is appellant – Parwinder Singh @ Pindu accused of harbouring and providing financial assistance to member of gangster and ‘designated terrorist’ Goldy Brar’s network for perpetrating heinous crime in the precincts of the Court premises itself which is so widely acclaimed to be the ‘Temple of Justice’ as was so graciously acknowledged also by the Chandigarh High Court in this leading case. It thus merits no reiterations that all the courts must in such similar cases emulate what has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this leading case so commendably. No denying!