Uttarakhand High Court
Gurjeet Singh Alias Gurjant Singh Alias … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2024
Gurjeet Singh alias Gurjant Singh alias Janta ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha,
Advocate for the informant
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal is preferred against the order
dated 18.09.2024, passed in Bail Application No.1248 of 2024,
Gurjeet Singh alias Gurjant Singh alias Janta and Another Vs.
State(“the bail application”), by the court of District and Sessions
Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the bail
application of the appellant has been rejected in Case Crime
No.609 of 2023, under Sections 16, 18, 20 and 21 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“the UAPA Act“), Police Station
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
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
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
2
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. The FIR in the instant matter under the UAPA Act
was lodged against 10 persons, including the appellant. After
investigation, chargesheet has not been submitted against all the
named accused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
offence under the provisions of the UAPA Act is made out against
the appellant; he was assigned the role in the killing of the
deceased Mahal Singh to the extent that he called one Jarnail
Singh and asked him to provide a motorcycle. It is argued that the
appellant did not handover the motorcycle to anyone; in fact,
killing of Mahal Singh was based on a property dispute with Harjit
Singh @ Kala, with whom the deceased had a partnership dispute
in a stone crusher business; many other persons did help the
shooters, including Rajwinder Kaur, who provided meals; Sukhdev
Singh Bajwa @ Sabby, who handed over the motorcycle to the
3
shooters, but those persons were exonerated by the police. He also
raised the following submissions in his argument:-
i) The offence under Section 302 IPC of killing of
Mahal Singh was an isolated act. It has no
connection with any terrorist activity.
ii) The appellant has already been granted bail in the
offence under Section 302 IPC.
iii) The appellant did not have any connection with
any known terrorist Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh
Dalla.
iv) The appellant had no knowledge that the persons,
who allegedly met the appellants, or whom the
appellant allegedly provided motorcycle, were sent
by Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits
that the appellant cannot be presumed to be in association with
Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, so as to bring him within the
ambit of the UAPA Act. The prosecution has to show any kind of
evidence to connect the appellant with any terrorist act or with
any terrorist, as such. But, it is argued that there is even no
material to suggest it. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
informant in the 302 IPC FIR submits that merely because the
appellant has secured bail in the offence under Section 302 IPC,
may not entitle him bail in the instant case; the bail has been
granted not by disbelieving the prosecution case, but it is
submitted that the Court had then taken into consideration the
period of incarceration, which the appellant had already
4
undergone in that case. He raised the following points in his
submission:-
i) The appellant did make a telephonic call to Jarnail
Singh for procuring the motorcycle.
ii) It was close proximity in terms of time of the
incident.
iii) There is digital record in terms of the voice
recording of the appellant as well as the video,
which suggests that Prabhjot Singh Pannu @
Prabhjit Singh had taken over the motorcycle from
Jarnail Singh.
iv) There is a serious threat perception to the family
of the deceased even at the hands of the appellant.
v) The shooters had come from Punjab jail on short
term bail for killing of Mahal Singh, and after
committing the offence, they again entered into
jail.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
informant also submits that how the appellant is connected with
the terrorist organization or terrorist, it may be a matter, which
State may explain, or maybe recorded in the case diary, which
may be perused by the Court.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that the appellant
did provide assistance to the main shooters; he provided
motorcycle to them and other assistance; co-accused Manpreet
Singh @ Mani @ Chuchi, who is one of the actual shooters, had
knowledge that he was working for Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh
Dalla.
5
10. The Court wanted to know from learned State
Counsel as to whether there is any material to suggest that the
appellant had any knowledge that the shooters were working for
Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla? He has no answer to it. In fact,
the case diary and the chargesheet is before the Court. The Court
has perused it and required learned State Counsel to also indicate
as to whether there is any material, which may even suggest that
the appellant had knowledge that the act of killing of the deceased
Mahal Singh was done at the instance of Arshdeep Singh Gill @
Arsh Dalla. He could not indicate any such material.
11. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion, at this
stage, is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with
the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no
bearing at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
12. The provisions of the UAPA Act are stringent.
Terrorist Act is defined under Section15 of the UAPA Act. It reads
as follows:-
“15. Terrorist act.–[(1)] Whoever does any act
with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity,
integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India
or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the
people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign
country,–
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….”
13. Section 43E of the UAPA Act makes provisions
with regard to the offence under Section 15 of the UAPA Act. It
reads as follows:-
“43E. Presumption as to offence under section
15.–In a prosecution for an offence under section 15, if it is
proved–
(a) that the arms or explosives or any other
substances specified in the said section were recovered from
6the possession of the accused and there is reason to believe
that such arms or explosives or other substances of a similar
nature were used in the commission of such offence; or
(b) that by the evidence of the expert the finger-
prints of the accused or any other definitive evidence
suggesting the involvement of the accused in the offence were
found at the site of the offence or on anything including arms
and vehicles used in connection with the commission of such
offence,
the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is shown, that
the accused has committed such offence.”
14. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act makes special
provisions with regard to bail. It reads as hereunder:-
“43D. Modified application of certain provisions
of the Code.–
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under
Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released
on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity of being heard on the application
for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on
bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case
diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of
the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”
15. A bare perusal of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act
suggests that an accused person under the UAPA Act shall not be
released on bail if the Court is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such
person is prima facie true.
16. In fact, the Court also requested learned State
Counsel to tell as to how the appellant could be connected to
Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, in his alleged subsequent
telephonic threat to the son of the deceased Mahal Singh and
demand of money? No material has been placed which could
suggest any connect in this regard also.
7
17. Section 15 of the UAPA Act, which defines
Terrorist act clearly provides as to what should be the intent of
committing the act, broadly which is related to the national
security, unity, integrity, etc. and terrorising the people.
18. Section 18 of the UAPA Act makes provisions for
punishment for conspiracy, etc. An act may be defined as terrorist
act, if it meets the requirement of Section 15 of the UAPA Act, and
for conspiracy, there should be some material or evidence to
suggest that there was link between the accused persons, which
may be termed as conspiracy.
19. During the hearing of this case, this Court has
also perused the record of BA1 No.1657 of 2023, with regard to
the bail of the appellant in the 302 IPC FIR case qua killing of the
deceased Mahal Singh. The statement of Navjot Singh, the son of
the deceased Mahal Singh, makes it abundantly clear that, in fact,
the deceased was into the business of stone crusher. He had some
other partners, and, Harjit Singh @ Kala, who was staying in
Canada, was not happy with the progress that has been made by
the deceased. He was inimical towards the deceased and he had
also threatened the deceased on multiple occasions. In fact, in the
302 IPC FIR also, suspicion was raised on Harjit Singh @ Kala in
the killing of the deceased Mahal Singh.
20. If it is a property dispute in the killing of the
deceased Mahal Singh, how could be termed as terrorist act under
Section 15 of the UAPA Act?
21. One of the co-accused in 302 IPC FIR, Arshdeep
Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla is a terrorist named in the 4th Schedule of
the UAPA Act, but can it be said that merely because Arshdeep
Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, a terrorist, is associated in the killing of
8
the deceased Mahal Singh, the appellant must have knowledge of
the involvement of Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla as a person
involved in the killing? How could such presumption be made?
22. Further, if Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla had
subsequently made any telephonic call to the son of the deceased
Mahal Singh, how could it be associated with the appellant?
23. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits
that initially the appellant was booked under Section 302 IPC, in
which he got bail. Thereafter, the FIR under the Gangster Act was
lodged against the appellant, and, thereafter, the FIR in the
instant case was lodged against the appellant. The appellant was
granted bail in the Gangster Act case. He was on bail for about six
months. Thereafter, he was picked up again in the instant case.
24. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and having heard the rival submission, this Court is of
the opinion that 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.
25. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
26. Let the appellant 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
9returned 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.)
13.03.2026
Ravi Bisht