Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Singh @ Nikka @ Baiya vs State Of Punjab on 19 May, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-D-214-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-214-2026
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED PRONOUNCED ON PRONOUNCED OR
ON FULL
27.04.2026 19.05.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 19.05.2026
Amarjeet Singh @ Nikka @ Baiya ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Ranwant Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section
184 21.10.2023 Balongi 120B, 121, 153 IPC, 25(7), 25(8),
54, 59 of Arms Act, 17, 18, 18(b),
20 of UAPA, 21C, 29, 61, 85 of
NDPS Act
Bail Application number before the Sessions BA-56-2026
Court
Date of Decision 14.01.2026
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS
Nagar vide order dated 14.01.2026, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing
the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
2. Per paragraph 23 of the status report, the appellant has the following criminal
antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 268/2024 - 42, 52A of Jail Manual Act City Faridkot
1
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
2. 39 11.04.2019 379, 467, 468, 471, 473, 212 Balongi
IPC
3. 45 04.09.2021 341, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, Kotli Surat
308 IPC Mallian
4. 25 13.08.2023 109, 115, 120-B IPC, 13, 17, SSOC Amritsar
18, 20 UAPA
5. 120 10.09.2023 25(7) of Arms Act, 17, 18, 20 Khuian Sarwar
UAPA
6. 33 17.09.2023 21, 29 of NDPS Act SSOC Amritsar
7. 65 15.11.2024 25 of Arms Act, 21,25,27A, 29 SSOC Amritsar
of NDPS Act and 61(2) BNS
8. 263 16.06.2025 22, 29 of NDPS Act City Faridkot
3. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant would have no objection
whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the
appellant repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a
sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to
revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall
have the authority to cancel this bail, and to which the appellant shall have no objection.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that he shall not use his right of speech expression
beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
4. The State’s counsel opposes the bail.
5. Facts of the case are being taken from the status report dated April 23, 2026 filed by
State counsel which reads as follows:
“BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
6. That with regard to the subject matter of the present appeal, it is
submitted that case/FIR No.184 dated 21.10.2023 under Section 120-
B, 121, 153 IPC, Section 25 (7), 25 (8) of Arms Act and Section 17,
18, 18-B, 20 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was registered at
Police Station Balongi, District S.A.S Nagar against Shakeel Ahmed
@ Laddi Gujjar, Karanbir Singh @ Raja, Nirbair Singh @ Sehajpreet
Singh @ Mani, Lovepreet Singh, Saroop Singh, Harpreet Singh @
Happy Panchiya, Nishan Singh and Harwinder Singh @ Rinda on the
ruqa of SI Aman Deep Verma that on 21.10.2023, he along with police
party and accompanied with laptop and printer was present near
Drain Pull, Village Balongi for patrolling and checking of suspicious
persons. During this time, a Desh Sewak approached SI Aman Deep
Verma and provided information regarding the involvement of the
accused in various criminal activities. The informant stated that
Shakeel Ahmed @ Laddi Gujjar, Karanbir Singh @ Raja, Nirbair
Singh @ Sehajpreet Singh @ Sunny, Lovepreet Singh and Saroop
Singh had formed a criminal gang and that several heinous crime
cases were registered against them in multiple police stations across
2
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
Punjab. It was further disclosed that the accused have links with
Harpreet Singh @ Happy Panchiya, Nishan Singh and Harwinder
Singh @ Rinda, the leader of the banned organization Babbar Khalsa
International (BKI), which is prohibited by the Government of India
and currently operates out of Pakistan. The accused, in collusion with
the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan are engaged in
activities aimed at undermining the unity and integrity of India by
orchestrating terrorist attacks. Harwinder Singh @ Rinda has
reportedly been recruiting youth into BKI by channelling funds into
the accounts of his associates Harpreet Singh @ Happy Panchiya and
Nishan Singh. These funds are said to be used for procuring foreign
weapons through smuggling and drones. It is believed that the
accused by hatching a conspiracy could target religious, political and
other high-profile individuals in Punjab and other states of India. It
was further reported that Shakeel Ahmed @ Laddi Gujjar was present
under the Bridge, Balongi, Mohali, Kharar Road awaiting an
individual described as wearing a red and black shawl and carrying a
backpack and in case, if apprehended, Shakeel Ahmed & Laddi Gujjar
could lead to the recovery of foreign weapons and potentially prevent
a major incident. Finding the aforesaid information to be trustworthy
and reliable and the prima facie offences under Sections 120-B, 121,
153 IPC, Section 25 (7), 25 (8) of Arms Act and Section 17, 18, 18-B,
20 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to be made out against the
aforesaid persons, the ruqa was sent for registration of FIR and
consequently, case/FIR No. 184 (supra) was registered against the
aforesaid persons.
12. That thereafter, on 10.11.2023, the accused Sehajpreet Singh @
Nirbair Singh @ Sunny was arrested in the present case/FIR No. 184
(supra) based on the production warrants, with the permission of the
Ld. Court. Based on the interrogation of the accused Sehajpreet Singh
@ Nirbair Singh @ Sunny, a person named Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi
son of Laxman Dass was nominated as an accused in the present
case/FIR No. 184 (supra) vide DDR No. 17dated 18.11.2023.
Furthermore, Sharanjit Singh @ Sunny and Amarjit Singh @ Nikka
(present appellant) were also nominated as accused in the present
case/FIR No. 184 (supra) vide DDR No. 14 dated 19.11.2023, based
on the interrogation of Sehajpreet Singh @ Nirbair Singh @ Sunny.”
6. State counsel opposes the bail on the grounds of massive criminal history and refers
to paragraph no. 23 of the status report which reads as follows:
“23. That as per official record, apart from the present case/FIR No.
184 (supra), the appellant is a habitual offender and is also involved
in eight more cases, the details of the same is as under:-
a. FIR No.268/2024 u/s 42,52A, Jail Manual Act PS City Faridkot,
Punjab
b. FIR No. 39 dated 11.04.19 u/s 379,467,468, 471,473,212 IPC PS
Balongi (Under Trial)3
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026c. FIR 45 No. dated 04.09.21 u/s 341,323,324,506,148,149,308
IPC PS Kotli Surat Mallian Distt. Batala
d. FIR No.25 dated 13.08.23 u/s 109,115,120-B IPC, 13,17,18,20
UAPA Act PS SSOC Amritsar Distt. CP Amritsar
e. FIR No. 120 dated 10.09.23 u/s 25(7) Arms Act, 17,18,20 UAPA
Act PS Khuian Sarwar Distt. Fazilka
f. FIR No. 33 dated 17.09.2023 u/s 21,29 NDPS Act PS SSOC
Amritsar Distt CP-ASR
g. FIR No. 65 dated 15.11.24 u/s 25 Arms act, 21,25,27A,29 NDPS
Act, 61(2) BNS PS SSOC Amritsar Distt. CP Amritsar
h. FIR No. 263 date 16.06.25 u/s 22,29 NDPS Act PS City Faridkot
Distt Faridkot”
7. Undoubtedly, there are massive criminal antecedents of the applicant, but this Court
has to analyze the evidence collected in the present case connecting him with the
commission of the offense and the legal admissibility of such evidence.
8. So far as the evidence collected against the present appellant-accused is only
because of investigation and interrogation of Sehajpreet Singh @ Nirbair Singh @ Sunny.
There is no recovery attributed against the appellant-accused. In addition, applicant’s
counsel on instructions states that the applicant has no objection whatsoever to any
condition.
9. In Yedala Subba Rao and Anr. v. UOI, 2023-INSC-382, Apr 17, 2023, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court holds,
[21]. We have examined material relied upon against the appellants in
paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit of the respondent as well as the
chargesheet. Taking the material against the appellants as it is and
without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form
an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the
UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail
under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case.
We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment
are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of
examining the case in the light of the proviso to subsection (5) of Section
43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these
observations.
10. In Vernon v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 10 S.C.R. 867; 2023 INSC 655, July 28,
2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[43]. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) [National
Investigation Agency -vs- Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC
1]reference was made to the judgment of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal
-vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13) in which, citing two earlier
4
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
decisions of this court in the cases of State -vs- Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962
SC 253) and Gurcharan Singh -vs- State of (UT of Delhi) [(1978) 1 SCC
118), the factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were
discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the offences, the
character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being
secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered
with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant
factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the appellants’ case
founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the
aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have
lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the
appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against
them no doubt are serious, but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied
to them. While dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the
1967 Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at this
stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of the
appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the others provisions
of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act.
11. In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, SLP (Criminal) No.10047 of
2023, 2024-INSC-92, February 07, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[18]. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-Ã -vis ordinary penal
offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted
phrase – ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ – unless circumstances
justify otherwise – does not find any place while dealing with bail
applications under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant
bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the
words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)– ‘shall not be released’ in
contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC –
‘may be released’ – suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail,
the exception and jail, the rule.
[19]. The courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task on hand. In
dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely
examining if there is justification to reject bail. The ‘justifications’ must
be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted before the
Special Court. The legislature has prescribed a low, ‘prima facie’
standard, as a measure of the degree of satisfaction, to be recorded by
Court when scrutinising the justifications [materials on record]. This
standard can be contrasted with the standard of ‘strong suspicion’, which
is used by Courts while hearing applications for ‘discharge’. In fact, the
Supreme Court in Zahoor Ali Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1] has noticed this
difference, where it said:
“In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the
Court for opining that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, is
lighter than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for5
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026considering a discharge application or framing of charges in
relation to offences under the 1967 Act.”
[20]. In this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail
must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if after hearing the public prosecutor and
after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a
conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail
is not satisfied – that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail
application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing
witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position is made clear by Sub-
section (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on
granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the
restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for
the time being in force on grant of bail.
[21]. On a textual reading of Section 43 D(5) UAP Act, the inquiry that a
bail court must undertake while deciding bail applications under the UAP
Act can be summarised in the form of a twin-prong test :
1) Whether the test for rejection of the bail is satisfied?
1.1 Examine if, prima facie, the alleged ‘accusations’ make out an
offence under Chapter IV or VI of the UAP Act
1.2 Such examination should be limited to case diary and final
report submitted under Section 173 CrPC;
2) Whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail in light of
the general principles relating to grant of bail under Section 439
CrPC (‘tripod test’)? On a consideration of various factors such as
nature of offence, length of punishment (if convicted), age,
character, status of accused etc., the Courts must ask itself :
2.1 Whether the accused is a flight risk?
2.2. Whether there is apprehension of the accused tampering with
the evidence?
2.3 Whether there is apprehension of accused influencing
witnesses?
22. The question of entering the ‘second test’ of the inquiry will not
arise if the ‘first test’ is satisfied. And merely because the first test
is satisfied, that does not mean however that the accused is
automatically entitled to bail. The accused will have to show that
he successfully passes the ‘tripod test’.
[33]. Hence, we are of the considered view that the material on record
prima facie indicates the complicity of the accused as a part of the
conspiracy since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of a
preparatory act towards the commission of terrorist act under section 18
of the UAP Act.
[34]. For the aforementioned reasons the bail application of the Appellant
is rejected and consequently the appeal fails…
6
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
12. In Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P., [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1054; 2024 INSC 534, July
18, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[5]. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the appellant by
the informant Inspector Tej Bahadur Singh under Sections 121A, 489B
and 489C of IPC. It came to be registered as Crime No. 01 of 2015.
Informant stated that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of
Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500, totalling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500.00, were
recovered from the possession of the appellant on 22.02.2015 at about
09:10 PM from the Indo-Nepal border. He was apprehended by a
constable of the ATS team and brought to the ATS Headquarter. In the
course of investigation, the appellant disclosed his name as Sheikh Javed
Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari, resident of Narayani Parsa,
Belwa, Nepal. In addition to the fake Indian currency notes, one
Nepalese driving licence of the appellant and one Nepalese citizenship
certificate also of the appellant were recovered besides two mobile
phones. According to the police, appellant had confessed that he was
engaged in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency
notes in Nepal. The appellant was arrested on 23.02.2015.
[32]. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and
personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained
from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory
provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-
undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been
infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the
way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever
stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of
constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.
In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline
to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular
statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of
our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb
(supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of
two Judges like us.
[33]. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the
considered view that continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be
justified. We are, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
13. In Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat, [2025] 6 S.C.R. 291; 2025 INSC 662,
May 13, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[25]. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced by both sides and upon careful perusal of the material on
record, we are of the view that the Appellant has not been able to make
out a case for grant of regular bail at this stage.
7
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
[26]. We say so for the reason that despite no direct recovery of
contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution’s case is that he
played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of
narcotics concealed as talc through M/s Magent India–which he
allegedly controlled through a proxy. The consignment, although not
seized with heroin, shares structural and logistical similarities with those
where heroin was ultimately found.
[27]. The charge against the Appellant must also be evaluated in light of
the broader matrix of facts, including
(i) his alleged meetings in Dubai with a principal foreign accused;
(ii) the transfer of documents through intermediaries for the
clearance of a flagged consignment;
(iii) efforts to retrospectively fabricate invoices and assign
responsibility to others;
(iv) the use of multiple firms allegedly connected to him to
obfuscate the true nature of the transactions; and
(v) his telephonic calls to certain co-conspirators.
These aspects, supported by the statements of protected witnesses and
circumstantial linkages, currently meet the threshold of prima facie
satisfaction regarding the Appellant’s complicity.
[28]. This Court is cognizant of the fact that no heroin or narcotic
substances were directly recovered from the consignment linked to the
Appellant. However, the investigative narrative does not rest solely on
physical recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and
facilitation. In such cases, the absence of direct seizure is not dispositive,
particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious
entities, and barter-based compensation–features which, according to
the prosecution, mark the smuggling architecture employed in the present
matter.
[29]. The Appellant faces serious charges, which allegedly carry grave
societal ramifications, including the facilitation of cross-border drug
trafficking–an offence with well-documented links to organised crime
and public health degradation. The seizure in the connected consignment
is part of what the Prosecution claims to be the largest heroin bust in
Indian history, valued at over INR 21,000 crores. The scale and
sophistication of the operation, involving foreign syndicates, shell firms,
medical visas, and false documentation, elevates this case far beyond
routine NDPS violations.
[30]. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that multiple key witnesses
still remain to be examined, and the trial while underway, will take time
in completion. Out of 24 most vulnerable or material witnesses, two have
died, and two others are untraceable. One of the deceased witnesses, a
retired Customs Officer, was found dead on the very day he was
scheduled to record his statement under Section 164 CrPC. The risk of
witness tampering or elimination–whether directly attributable to the
8
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
Appellant or not–is a real and present concern that militates against the
grant of bail at this stage.
[31]. Moreover, the Appellant’s criminal antecedents, though not
involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple DRI
and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes,
undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption offences.
These antecedents are relevant only for the limited purpose of evaluating
the Appellant’s propensity to interfere with the process of justice if
enlarged on bail.
[32]. NIA has also highlighted that several accused remain absconding,
including the primary foreign conspirators. In that context, the
Appellant’s foreign travel, overseas connections, and financial capacity
cannot be overlooked in evaluating the possibility of flight risk. These
are not speculative concerns but flow directly from the Appellant’s prior
conduct and profile.
[33]. We are conscious of the settled principle that pre-trial incarceration
should not translate into punitive detention. The Appellant has been in
custody since 24.08.2022, and while we do not find that this duration
alone warrants bail under the present circumstances, the Appellant shall
remain at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months,
or upon substantial advancement in the trial, whichever is earlier. Such a
course would allow the Prosecution to complete the examination of its
core witnesses while preserving the accused’s right to seek release at a
later and more appropriate stage.
[34]. Before parting with this matter, we deem it necessary to clarify that,
at this stage, it would be premature and speculative to extend the
allegations against the Appellant to the domain of terror financing. While
the prosecution has invoked provisions of the UAPA and has broadly
linked the smuggling enterprise to trans-national syndicates with
suspected affiliations, there is no compelling reason to currently link the
Appellant and proscribed terrorist organisations, either within or outside
the country. The evidentiary foundation to sustain such a grave allegation
must be clear and compelling–something that, can be seen only after a
substantial portion of evidence is led by both the parties.
[35]. In light of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, we dismiss the instant appeal with the
following directions:
i. We are not inclined to enlarge the Appellant on regular bail at
this stage. He shall be at liberty to renew his plea for regular bail
after a period of 6 months, or at a stage where the ongoing trial has
progressed substantially;
ii. The NIA is directed to submit to the Special Court an additional
list of witnesses who, in its assessment, are sensitive or material,
inasmuch as their testimony may have a direct bearing on the role9
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026of the Appellant or other co-accused in the ongoing trial and
connected investigation;
iii. The Special Court is directed to list the matter twice in a month
and record the statements of Prosecution witnesses on a continuous
and uninterrupted basis; and
iv. If the Presiding Officer of the Special Court has not been posted
thus far, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of
Gujarat to do the needful within a week.
14. In the light of the Judicial Precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
considering the nature of allegations against the appellant and keeping in mind the stage of
trial, and the pre-trial custody, we are of the considered opinion that further pre-trial
incarceration would cause grave injustice to the appellant.
15. Further, the appellant, through his counsel, undertakes not to indulge in any Anti-
India activity and also that he would not cross the limits of his speech and expression
beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and considering the
entire facts and the pre-trial custody, which on the face of it, is excessive for the purpose of
pre-trial custody and the undertaking given by the appellant through counsel, we are of the
considered opinion that his further custody is not required.
16. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances unique and
peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the appellant makes a case for
bail.
17. Given the above, provided the appellant is not required in any other case, the
appellant shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds
of Rs. 1 lac to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court and due to unavailability before
any nearest Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate/ Ilaqa Magistrate.
18. In Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2026-INSC-2, Jan 05, 2026, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[434]. The appellants granted bail shall be released subject to the
following conditions, which are imposed not as matters of form, but as
substantive safeguards in the interest of national security, public order,
and the integrity of the trial process.
i. Each of the appellants shall execute a personal bond in the sum of
₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two local sureties of the like
sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
ii. The appellants shall remain within the National Capital Territory of
Delhi and shall not leave its territorial limits without prior permission of
10
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
the Trial Court. Any request for travel shall disclose reasons and such
prayer/request shall be considered by the Trial Court strictly on its merits
iii. The appellants shall surrender their passports, if any, before the Trial
Court. Where no passport exists, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed.
We direct the respondent to intimate all the immigration authorities in the
country not to permit their exit from the country in any manner
whatsoever, without express permission from the Trial Court.
iv. The appellants shall furnish their current residential addresses, contact
numbers, and e-mail addresses to the Investigating Officer as well as to
the Trial Court. The appellants shall not change their place of residence
or contact particulars without giving at least seven days’ prior written
intimation to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court.
v. Each of the appellants, namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-
ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, shall personally
appear twice a week, that is on Monday and Thursday between 10:00
a.m. and 12:00 noon, before the Station House Officer, Police Station
Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110001 and mark
their attendance. The Station House Officer shall maintain a separate
register of attendance in respect of each of these appellants and shall
furnish a monthly compliance report to the Trial Court, which shall be
placed on the main record of the case.
vi. The abovenamed appellants shall not directly or indirectly contact,
influence, intimidate or attempt to contact any witness or any person
connected with the proceedings, nor shall they associate with or
participate in the activities of any group or organization linked to the
subject matter of the present FIR/ final report.
vii. The appellants shall not make or publish or disseminate any
information, statement, article or post whether in print, electronic or
social media concerning the present case or its
participants till conclusion of the trial.
viii. The appellants shall not participate in any programme or address or
attend any gathering, rally or meeting, whether physically or virtually till
conclusion of the trial.
ix. The appellants shall not circulate any post either in electronic form or
physical form or circulate any hand bills, posters, banners, etc in any
form whatsoever.
x. The appellants shall fully cooperate with the trial and shall appear on
every date of hearing unless exempted for reasons to be recorded by the
Trial Court to its satisfaction and they shall
not exhibit any conduct that has the effect of delaying the proceedings.
11
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
xi. The appellants shall maintain peace and good behaviour throughout
and in the event of any offence committed during the pendency of the
trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for revocation of the bail
granted by filing such application before the Trial Court and in the event
of such application being filed the Trial Court shall consider it on its own
merits.
[435]. In case of breach of any of the afore-stated conditions imposed or
in the event of appellants having misused the liberty granted, it shall be
open to the Trial Court to cancel the bail which would be necessarily
after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
19. The Appellants shall abide by all the above conditions as were ordered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gulfisha Fatima supra, before the police station
concerned in the present case.
20. In addition to the above conditions, the Appellant shall also abide by the following
additional conditions, wherever these do not overlap with the conditions mentioned in
Gulfisha Fatima supra. It is clarified that the conditions mentioned in Gulfisha Fatima
supra are to be preferred over the following conditions imposed by this Court.
21. The appellant shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
22. The appellant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, and if he does so, the
State shall have the right to apply for cancellation of bail.
23. The appellant shall mention his current address, phone number, e-mail, if any, and
present address, native address, and in case of change, he shall inform the SHO of the
police station concerned through a registered letter by mentioning the case number.
Additionally, he shall also inform the concerned Court before whom the bonds were
furnished.
24. Given the background of allegations against the appellant, it becomes paramount to
protect the members of society as well as the integrity of the country, and incapacitating the
accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report,
discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of
firearms. This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of
probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it
is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction. Given the nature of the allegations and
12
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the appellant shall surrender all weapons,
firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license, to the concerned authority
within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of compliance.
However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the appellant shall be entitled to renew and
take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided that this is otherwise permissible
under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would
also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
25. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure that the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of
NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29,
decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The
bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they
seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts,
while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of
a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and
liberties must be eschewed.”
26. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP
(Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if
the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted
to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary
consequences.”
27. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the appellant
repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of
imprisonment for more than three years, the State shall file an application to revoke this
bail before the trial Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority
to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.
28. Any observation made hereinabove is tentative and is not an expression of opinion
on the case’s merits, and it shall have no bearing on the trial or on the case of the co-
accused, and the trial Court shall not advert to these comments.
29. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in
any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.
30. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided
on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13,
holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or
13
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRA-D-214-2026
whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is
appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not
immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a
situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the
downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court
before whom the bail bonds are furnished.”
31. Given the above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed in terms
mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
19.05.2026
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned YES
Whether reportable NO
14
JYOTI SHARMA
2026.05.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
