Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Bail Pleas in High-Profile Murder Case Linked to UAPA

Accused in the murder of a Dera Sacha Sauda follower face continued incarceration as court emphasizes seriousness of allegations under UAPA.

In a significant judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the bail applications of Bhola Singh, Baljit Singh @ Mahna, and Harjinder Singh @ Raju, involved in the high-profile murder case of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, have been decisively rejected. The case, which has attracted considerable attention due to its connections with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), underscores the court's stance on maintaining stringent judicial standards in cases involving allegations of terrorism and conspiracy.

The murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria, a follower of the Dera Sacha Sauda, occurred on November 10, 2022, following an attack by six assailants who fired upon him, his security official, and a neighbor. The incident was reportedly linked to the sacrilege cases involving the Guru Granth Sahib, and the subsequent FIR included charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA. The prosecution's case hinges on allegations of a conspiracy orchestrated by international gangsters, including Goldy Brar, who resides abroad.

The judgment, delivered by Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Ramesh Kumari, emphasized the gravity of the allegations against the accused, who were charged with multiple offenses under the UAPA, including Sections 16, 18, and 20, which pertain to terrorist activities and involvement in a terrorist gang. The court noted the chequered criminal history of the accused, with multiple prior cases, as a factor in denying bail.

The court's decision was guided by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes an embargo on granting bail if prima facie allegations against the accused are found to be true upon reviewing the case diary or charge-sheet. The judgment highlighted the balance courts must maintain between individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and societal interest, particularly in cases involving serious allegations like terrorism.

Defense counsel for the accused argued for bail based on the lengthy incarceration of the accused and the absence of direct evidence linking them to the crime. However, the court was unconvinced, citing the seriousness of the charges and the potential threat posed by the accused if released.

The judgment also provided directions for expediting the trial process, instructing the trial court to ensure timely summoning and recording of prosecution witnesses to avoid undue delay in cases involving serious offenses under the UAPA.

This judgment reflects the court's commitment to upholding the law in cases of national security and terrorism, while also ensuring that the trial proceeds expeditiously to deliver justice.

Bottom Line:

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Bail application under UAPA - Prima facie allegations and evidence play a crucial role - Long incarceration alone cannot justify granting bail when the allegations under UAPA are serious in nature and supported by material evidence.

Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 43D(5), 15, 16, 18, 20; Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-B, 201, 473, 411, 212; Arms Act Section 25.

Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2815679