Uttarakhand High Court
Prabhjot Singh Pannu Alias Prabhjit … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 July, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010081312026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2026)
in
Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2026
Prabhjot Singh Pannu Alias Prabhjit Singh
--Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. S R S Gill, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned DAG for the State.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the informant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
This is an appeal preferred against the order dated
05.05.2026, passed in third Bail Application No.503 of 2026,
‘Prabhjot Singh Pannu alias Prabhjit Singh vs. State‘, by the court
of District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. By it, bail
application of the appellant in FIR No.609 of 2023 under Sections
16, 18, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
[“the UAPA Act“], Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The basis of the case is FIR No.631 of 2022, Police
Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 302
IPC (“the 302 IPC FIR”), according to which, when the deceased
1
UKHC010081312026
Mahal Singh was reading newspaper outside his house on
13.10.2022, two motorcycle borne assailants approached him and
opened indiscriminate fire, due to which he died on the spot. As
soon as the informant of the case reached at the spot, the
assailants had managed to escape from the place of incident. The
FIR in that case records that, in fact, one Harjit Singh alias Kala
had made a telephonic call from Canada and threatened the
deceased by demanding money. According to the prosecution,
named terrorist, co-accused Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, with
the help of his associate Sukhdul Dunuke @ Sukkha and others
agreed to kill the deceased; they hired shooter Sadhu Singh and
Manpreet Singh @ Mani @ Chuchi and the appellant and others
gave shelters, provided vehicles and other assistance to the
shooters, which resulted into the killing of the deceased Mahal
Singh. Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla had subsequently
telephonically demanded money from the son of the deceased and
threatened him to life. The prosecution case is that the appellant
and others are threatening the witnesses. They are demanding
money from various persons, which is an anti-social activity.
4. In the instant matter, FIR under the UAPA Act has
been lodged against ten persons, including the appellant. After
investigation, charge-sheet has not been submitted against all the
named accused in the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a
case of isolated killing of deceased Mahal Singh. The appellant is
not named in the FIR. He has no connection with any notified
terrorist group. Appellant has only been assigned the role that he
procured one motorcycle and handed over to Sukhdev Singh alias
Sabby to hand over that motorcycle to the shooters. But it is
2
UKHC010081312026
argued that Sukhdev Singh alias Sabby is not an accused; he was
also named in the UAPA Act FIR, but he has been exonerated
during investigation.
6. It is also argued that the second material against the
appellant, which the prosecution relies on is that it is the appellant
who picked up the actual shooters from the railway station in a
Bolero car. It is argued that there is no evidence to substantiate it;
the appellant cannot be seen in the Bolero car picking up the
shooters; merely the owner of the vehicle has allegedly stated that
the appellant had borrowed the car from him. Therefore, it is
argued that this is also a weak kind of evidence.
7. It is also argued that the prosecution relied on the
alleged confession made by the appellant that he used to speak to
one Harjit Singh and Sukhdul Dunuke alias Sukkha on Signal app
and he had forwarded the photograph of the deceased and his son
through that app to Sukhdul Dunuke alias Sukkha. It is argued
that it is a confession; it cannot be read into evidence. Moreover,
there is no material to corroborate it, nothing was retrieved
electronically. At the end of his argument, learned counsel would
submit that co-accused Gurjeet Singh alias Gurjant Singh alias
Janta has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 579 of 2024. It is a case of parity.
8. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that it is
true that co-accused Gurjeet Singh alias Gurjant Singh alias Janta
has already been granted bail by this Court, but he would submit
that there is one additional evidence against the appellant. He has
confessed that he used to speak to Harjit Singh and Sukhdul
Dunuke alias Sukkha through Signal app. According to him, the
3
UKHC010081312026
transcript could not be detected, but forensically it is established
that the appellant has installed Signal app on his cell phone, which
subsequently he deleted.
9. Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that it is not the
prosecution case either that the appellant was in any manner
directly connected with Arshdeep Singh Gill alias Arsh Dalla, a
notified terrorist. Learned State Counsel also adopts the argument
that has been advanced on behalf of the Informant by the learned
Senior Counsel.
10. Against co-accused Gurjeet Singh alias Gurjant Singh
alias Janta, the allegation was that he called one Jarnail Singh and
asked him to provide a motorcycle which was used in the killing of
Mahal Singh. The appellant has been assigned the role of picking
up the motorcycle and handing over to one Sukhdev Singh alias
Sabby, who finally, according to the prosecution, handed it over to
the actual shooters. Sukhdev Singh alias Sabby has already been
exonerated under the UAPA Act. This Court need not repeat the
legal aspects of the matter because it has already been dealt with
by this Court.
11. On 13.03.2026, while granting bail to co-accused Gurjeet
Singh alias Gurjant Singh alias Janta in Criminal Appeal No. 579
of 2024, this Court has taken note of the provision of Sections 15,
12. In fact, there was a property dispute between deceased
Mahal Singh and other persons associated with him in the
business. In that killing of Mahal Singh, one of the co-accused
Arshdeep Singh Gill alias Arsh Dalla, notified terrorist is named in
the Fourth Schedule of UAPA Act. But admittedly, appellant did not
4
UKHC010081312026
speak to him ever. Can it be said that the appellant had knowledge
of involvement of Arshdeep Singh Gill alias Arsh Dalla as a person
involved in the killing? Perhaps such an inference cannot be drawn.
13. In fact, it is a case of parity with co-accused Gurjeet Singh
alias Gurjant Singh alias Janta. Therefore, having considered the
facts and circumstances, and having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie
true. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
14. Consequently, the criminal appeal is allowed.
15. Let the appellant-Prabhjot Singh Pannu alias Prabhjit
Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following
conditions:-
i) The appellant shall not contact any of the witnesses
either physically or through any other person or
electronically.
ii) The appellant shall deposit his passport with the court
concerned. The passport may only be returned by the
order of the court concerned. In case the appellant does
not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that
effect to the court concerned.
iii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission
of the court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.07.2026 22.07.2026
JKJ/
5
