Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh Alias Labu Alias Sandhu vs State Of Punjab on 19 May, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-D-498-2025 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-498-2025 (O&M)
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON FULL
07.05.2026 19.05.2026 FULL 19.05.2026
PRONOUNCED
Lovepreet Singh @ Labu @ Sandhu ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section
184 21.10.2023 Balongi, Mohali 120-B, 121, 153 IPC and Sections 25 (7)
(8), 54-59 of Arms Act (amended 2019)
and 17-18-18B and 20 of Unlawful
Activity Prevention Act, 1967 later on
added Sections 21C-29-61-85 of NDPS
Act
Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court CIS No.BA-3903-2024
CNR No.PBSA0100-9656-2024
Date of Decision 19.12.2024
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide
order dated 19.12.2024, the appellant had come before this Court by filing the present
appeal, seeking bail in the FIR mentioned above.
2. As per the custody certificate dated 05.05.2026, the appellant has the following
criminal antecedents: –
Sr. FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
1. 31 07.04.2022 Kotli Surat 302, 201, 34 IPC, 25/54/59 of
Malhi Arms Act
2 222 08.12.2025 Sadar Sangrur 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act
3 12 10.01.2026 Tripuri 21, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 52-A of
Prison Act
JYOTI
2026.05.19 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
CRA-D-498-2025 (O&M)
2
3. The facts of the case are being taken from status report dated 23.04.2026 filed by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Investigation, SAS Nagar, the same reads as under:-
“2. That with regard to the subject matter of the present petition, it is
submitted that case/FIR No.184 dated 21.10.2023 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 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 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
(appellant) and Saroop Singh had formed a criminal gang and that
several heinous crime cases were registered against them in multiple
police stations across 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 through their
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
JYOTI
2026.05.19 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
CRA-D-498-2025 (O&M)
3aforesaid 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 including the appellant.”
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record, including the
reply and its analysis, which would lead to the following outcome.
5. It would be appropriate to refer following paragraphs of the status report, which
reads as follows:
“xxx xxxx The appellant and his accomplices, 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. Furthermore, during the investigation, the appellant was found in
possession of one pistol .30 bore, along with 60 live cartridges for .30
bore pistol was recovered from the bed at his residence. Furthermore,
during investigation Lovepreet Singh @ Labhu (appellant) is an active
member of the said module and was involved in a criminal conspiracy
relating to target killing, concealment of illegal arms. xxxx xxx”
6. A perusal of the evidence collected against the appellant clearly points towards his
involvement, which is established and corroborated by recovery of pistol along with 60 live
cartridges. In addition to this, the appellant has massive criminal history as mentioned in
para 19 of the status report, which involves a case of murder, two cases of NDPS Act and
02 cases of extortion. Even such evidence and criminal history, he is not entitled for bail.
Even otherwise, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and the same is
upheld. Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the appellant
7. In UOI Rep. by Insp. of NIA v. Barakathullah, [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011; 2024 INSC 452, May
22, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division
having received a credible information that the office bearers, members and
cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization have
been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu, by establishing State
Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai and also offices in various districts of
Tamil Nadu and that through their frontal Organizations like Campus Front of
India, National Women’s Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they
conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist
activities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology, and that
JYOTI
2026.05.19 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
CRA-D-498-2025 (O&M)
4
the frontal organizations and PFI were involved in the recruitment of members
to various prescribed terrorist organizations, passed an order on 16th September
2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 6
read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘NIA Act‘), directing the National Investigation Agency to
take up investigation of the said case. In view of the said order, an FIR being
RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present
respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for the offences under
Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the
“UAPA”).
[22]. In the instant case, we are satisfied from the chargesheet as also the other
material/documents relied upon by the appellant that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima
facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5)
would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail. Having regard to
the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, previous criminal history of
the respondents as mentioned in the charge-sheet, the period of custody
undergone by the respondents being hardly one and half years, the severity of
punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material
collected during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the
High Court cannot be sustained. We are conscious of the legal position that we
should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by
the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting
bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.
8. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s
merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
9. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
19.05.2026
jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned YES
Whether reportable NO
JYOTI
2026.05.19 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
[ad_1]
Source link
