The Court cites seriousness of offense, criminal history, and prima facie evidence as grounds for denying bail to accused Hardik Kamboj.
In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the denial of bail to Hardik Kamboj, who stands accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and other related statutes for allegedly throwing a live hand grenade at a YouTube influencer's residence. The Division Bench comprising Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur delivered the judgment on April 1, 2026, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the potential threat to public safety.
The Court's judgment comes in the wake of an appeal by Kamboj against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, who had earlier refused his bail application. The incident, which took place on the night of March 15/16, 2025, involved Kamboj allegedly throwing a hand grenade at the complainant's house, creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity among the public. The grenade, however, did not explode.
The prosecution presented substantial evidence against Kamboj, including confessional statements, recovery of weapons, and financial transactions linking him to the act. The Court noted that Kamboj's actions were instigated by a foreign-based individual, adding a layer of seriousness to the charges. The Court also took into account Kamboj's previous criminal history and the prima facie evidence suggesting his involvement in the heinous crime, which justified the denial of bail.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in the case of "UOI Rep. by Insp. of NIA v. Barakathullah," reinforcing the principle that bail should not be granted when reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations are prima facie true, especially in cases involving severe allegations under the UAPA.
The High Court observed that granting bail in such cases could undermine law and order and instill public fear, further justifying the denial. The Court concluded that the trial court's order rejecting bail was free from any infirmity and did not warrant interference.
The decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in handling cases under the UAPA, particularly when the allegations involve acts of terrorism and public endangerment. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in balancing individual liberties with national security concerns.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under UAPA and Explosive Substances Act - Denial of bail justified when prima facie evidence indicates accused's involvement in heinous crimes, such as throwing a hand grenade, causing fear and insecurity among the public.
Statutory provision(s):
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Arms Act, 1959, Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
Hardik Kamboj v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2877485
