Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya Kumari vs State Of Ut Chd on 17 July, 2026
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
CRA-D-1243-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-1243 OF 2024 (O&M)
RESERVED ON: MAY 22, 2026
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 17, 2026
Maya Kumari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.05.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.07.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 20.07.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Manvir Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
For the appellant.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with
Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor and
Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate,
For respondent-U.T. Chandigarh
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
The appellant has challenged the order dated May 30, 2024,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby her bail
application in FIR No.29 of 26.02.2024 registered under Section
25,54,59 of the Arms Act, Sections 419, 471, 201, 120-B of the Indian
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 1 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“) and Sections 17, 18, 18-B
and 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter
referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh, has
been dismissed. The provisions of UAPA were later added to the FIR on
March 11, 2024.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it
has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities
under the UAPA, but except for recovery of one brown coloured mobile
phone of Samsung make, one Advocate’s attire consisting of a white
shirt, one pair of black trousers and one black coat, no other
incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from her.
There was no legally admissible material on record to establish the
involvement of appellant with any “designated terrorist” which could
even suggest that the appellant has committed an offence under the
UAPA.
3. He further argued that the case of the prosecution, at best,
was that the appellant- Maya Kumari along with co-accused Sunny and
Umang had done recce at the premises of District Courts at Mohali,
Chandigarh and Panchkula on February 12, 2024 with the motive of
killing one gangster- Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he came for his
court hearing, as per the instructions of the terrorist Goldy Brar.
However, there was no material to connect the appellant with the said
terrorist. The appellant has been incarcerated for more than two and a
half years and on the basis of prolonged custody alone, the appellant
SHALINI
should have been released on bail.
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 2 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
4. He has relied on the judgment of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur
v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994)4 SCC 602 to submit that
there was no allegation or the material to argue that the essential
ingredients “constituting a terrorist act” as defined under Section 15 of
the UAPA is present in this case. When such material is absent, the
accused cannot be charged by invoking provisions of UAPA.
5. He has further placed reliance on the judgments of Apex
Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713,
Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and
another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @
Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693,
wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the
accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Court had directed the State to file a comprehensive
affidavit after filing of the supplementary challan, vide order dated
January 15, 2026. Pursuant to the said direction, the State has filed a
comprehensive affidavit of Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that appellant along
with her co-accused is involved in anti-national activities. The
SHALINI
prosecution’s case is that on the basis of secret information, two boys
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 3 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
were apprehended at around 11:45 pm on February 25, 2024 near Bus
Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The said boys were riding a white Activa
without helmets. Upon enquiry, they revealed their names as Sunny @
Sachin @ Maddy Manchanda and Umang. Upon search being conducted,
one pistol and a live cartridge was found from the right pocket of
Sunny’s trousers and 03 live cartridges were recovered from Umang’s
trousers. All the cartridges bore the mark of “KF 7.65” on the back. FIR
No.29 was initially registered on February 26, 2024 under Section
25/54/59 of the Arms Act against Sunny and Umang. Upon disclosure
made by both Sunny and Umang, co-accused Parwinder Singh @ Pindu
along with Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger, Anmolpreet Singh and present
appellant- Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma were arrested. Kailash
Chauhan @ Tiger was arrested upon identification by Sunny while taking
a stroll near the wall of the parking area of gate of District Court, Sector-
43, Chandigarh. One pistol and 02 live cartridges were recovered from
him on February 26, 2024.
8. Upon disclosure and identification by Sunny, Parwinder
Singh @ Pindu was arrested on February 28, 2024 from TDI City,
Sector-111, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A Verna car bearing registration
No.CH01-BP-6918 and two mobile phones (one light grey coloured
Apple phone with sim and another Oneplus Skyblue coloured phone with
sim) were recovered from him and taken into police custody.
9. On the very same day i.e February 28, 2024, Anmolpreet
Singh was arrested from TDI City, Sector-111, SAS Nagar, Mohali upon
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 4 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
disclosure and identification by Sunny that Anmolpreet was his friend
and aide of Goldy Brar.
10. The present appellant- Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma
was arrested near Counter no. 30, Sector 43 Bus Stand the next day i.e on
February 29, 2024 upon secret information and identification by Sunny.
One slate colour backpack containing Advocate’s attire i.e. a pair of
black coloured trousers, one black blazer and one white shirt was
recovered from her. The said clothes were purchased from Van Heusen
showroom at Elante Mall. One mobile phone was recovered from her and
taken into police custody. According to prosecution, she also got
recovered one pistol and two live cartridges and broken pieces like
battery, back body, two parts of touch screen of mobile by Techno
Company from the jungle behind ISBT-43, Chandigarh.
11. Upon secret information and identification by present
appellant-Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma, one Baljeet Singh was
apprehended from House No.177/1, Phase-3, SAS Nagar, Mohali
(Punjab) and a mobile phone VIVO (black colour with sim) was
recovered from him along with a Splender bike.
12. The case of prosecution is that upon instructions from Goldy
Brar, co-accused Sunny, Umang and Maya had done recce at the
premises of District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula on
February 12, 2024 with the motive of killing one gangster- Bhupinder @
Bhuppi Rana when he came for his court hearing. The accused Sunny
used to communicate with terrorists like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan
SHALINI
through his phone on Signal App.
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 5 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
14. At the outset, it is appropriate to refer to Section 43(D) of the
UAPA. Section 43-D of the UAPA is reproduced hereinafter for ready
reference:-
“43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or
any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall
be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of
clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case”
as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a
case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject
to the modification that in sub-section (2),–
(a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and
“sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as
references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety
days” respectively; and
(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be
inserted, namely:–
“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the
investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court
may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor
indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific
reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said
period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one
hundred and eighty days:
Provided also that if the police officer making the
investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of
investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any
person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating
the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if
any, for requesting such police custody.
(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case
involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the
modification that–
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 6 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
(a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof–
(i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a
reference to “the Central Government or the State
Government.”;
(ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed
as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case may be”; and
(b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to “the State
Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the
Central Government or the State Government, as the case
may be”.
(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation
to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of
having committed an offence punishable under this Act
.
(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.
(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-
section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code
or any other law for the time being in force on granting of
bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5)
and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an
offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian
citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or
illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for
reasons to be recorded in writing.”
15. As per Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, no person accused of
an offence punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in
custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 7 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
an opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such
relief and if the Court, on perusing the case diary or the report filed under
Section 173 Cr.P.C is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusations against such persons are prima facie
proved. Section 43-D(6) further stipulates that restrictions for grant of
bail specified in Section 43-D(5) would be in addition to the restrictions
provided under the Cr.P.C or any other law for the time being in force on
granting of bail.
16. From the comprehensive affidavit dated February 10, 2026
of Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime),
Chandigarh Police, it appears that the appellant was arrested near
Counter No.30, Bus Stand Sector-43, Chandigarh on February 29, 2024
along with one slate coloured backpack from which an Advocate’s attire
i.e. a pair of black trousers, one black blazer and one white shirt were
recovered which were purchased from Van Heusen showroom, Elante
Mall. Wearing the aforesaid dress, the said appellant conducted recce of
District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula. One mobile phone
was also recovered from the appellant-Maya Kumari and upon removing
the cover of the said phone, a tax invoice issued by Harsh Trading
Company, Nayagaon, Mohali, Punjab, was found inside the cover. From
the said invoice, it transpired that one brown coloured mobile phone of
Samsung make was purchased from said shop. The said phone was also
taken into police custody. Furthermore, on her disclosure, one pistol
along with 02 live cartridges inside one magazine, broken pieces i.e
SHALINI
battery, back body of two mobile phones of Techno company, two parts
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 8 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
of touch screen and one battery were also recovered from the jungle
behind ISBT, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The appellant disclosed that she
used to communicate with terrorist Goldy Brar and Rohit Godara from
her mobile phone through applications like Signal, Zangi etc.
17. Furthermore, the appellant-Maya Kumari disclosed that one
Baljeet Singh, who was also apprehended by the police, used his
Splendor bike to transport her from bus stand Sector-43, Chandigarh to
his acquaintance’s residence at House No.2906, Sector-42, Chandigarh
on 22nd and 23rd February, 2024 at the instance of one Rohit Godara. The
said Baljeet Singh dropped the appellant Maya Kumari back to bus stand
on February 29, 2024 at Rohit Godara’s instance. The appellant
communicated with said Rohit Godara from Baljeet Singh’s phone
through Signal App and Whatsapp.
18. During investigation, it also transpired that co-accused
Umang and Sunny stayed with the appellant in a lodge in Sector-43,
Chandigarh. The visitors’ register of the said lodge has been annexed to
the comprehensive affidavit. The appellant went with Sunny and Umang
to Subway in Sector-90, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. CCTV footage of
the said Subway has been referred to in the comprehensive affidavit. The
phone belonging to Techno Company containing the evidence of
commission of an offence and connection of appellant with the members
of the terrorist gang was destroyed by her to shield them and only
fragmented parts were retrieved by the Investigating Officers. She also
impersonated herself as Pooja Sharma where her actual name is Kashish
SHALINI
@ Maya.
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 9 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
19. The appellant used fake Aadhar Card in the name of Pooja
Sharma and also fake address during her stay at Hotel Sun City, Sector-
42, Attawa, Chandigarh, Hotel Royal Brooks, Sector-22, Chandigarh,
Hotel Purple, Nayagaon, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Copies of all the visitors’
registers and entries made therein have been appended with the
comprehensive affidavit.
20. Upon the appellant Maya Kumari’s disclosure, the police
along with her reached House No.117/1, Sector 53, Phase-3, Mohali,
where the appellant identified the said Baljeet Singh as the same boy who
used to transport her to and fro from ISBT, Sector-43, Chandigarh. Upon
her disclosure, Baljeet Singh was arrested on March 02, 2024. A
Splendor bike bearing registration No.CH 01 BR 9851 that was
recovered from him, was taken into custody along with black coloured
VIVO mobile phone used by him.
21. Upon arrest of Baljeet Singh, he disclosed that on February
22, 2024, he received a call from his aunt’s son Navdeep Singh, resident
of Uttarakhand and upon his instructions, he had downloaded the Signal
application. He was further instructed by Navdeep Singh to provide
transportation to a girl from ISBT, Sector-43, Chandigarh to a safe place
of residence. The photo of a girl was shared with him and the said girl
was the appellant- Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma. She had the word
‘Kashish’ written on her left hand along with a tattoo of an AK-47 rifle.
22. The appellant- Maya Kumari used to talk to Rohit Godara
on Baljeet Singh’s phone vide the downloaded Signal App. On February
SHALINI
29, 2024, his cousin Navdeep Singh called to inform that other gang
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 10 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
members were arrested and Baljeet Singh was required to drop the
appellant back at the Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. Upon such
instructions, Baljeet Singh had dropped the appellant at the bus stand.
The CCTV footage has been taken into police custody. The CDR (call
detail records) and CAF were obtained from Airtel and Jio companies
and the location of the accused were found near Elante Mall, Bus stand
Sector-43, Chandigarh, District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and
Panchkula.
23. From the CFSL result received from Sector-36, Chandigarh
and retrieval of the data from all the mobile phones, it transpired that co-
accused Sunny and the appellant- Maya were wearing Advocate’s dress
and Umang was seen in the back drop. Therefore, the connection of
appellant- Maya Kumari with Sunny and Umang has been clearly
established.
24. The appellant is facing trial for creating unlawful association
and conspiracy for creating an atmosphere of terror in the Court premises
itself, by aiding and abetting her co-accused Sunny, Umang and
Parwinder Singh @ Pindu to commit crime of murder of a gangster-
Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana and prima facie evidence has been provided
in the comprehensive affidavit to show her links with Sunny and Umang
and ultimately with Goldy Brar, a designated terrorist.
25. It is true that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
fundamental right to protection of life and liberty, including the right to a
speedy trial is enshrined. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a
SHALINI
catena of judgments, including the ones cited by learned counsel for the
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 11 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
appellant that a long custody itself would entitle the accused under
UAPA to be granted bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
26. In the present case, the appellant has undergone an actual
sentence of 02 years and 05 months and this is not a case where the State
has not been able to attribute any specific role, prima facie, to the
appellant indicating her involvement with any offence under the UAPA.
It cannot be said, at this stage, that no incriminating material has been
collected by the State connecting the appellant to the intent of striking
terror.
27. The definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 needs to
be considered at this juncture and the same is reproduced hereinafter:
“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,-
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances
or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal
weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals
or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive,
nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other
means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause –
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the
life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or[(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of
production or smuggling or circulation of high quality
counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other
material; or]
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 12 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a
foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence
of India or in connection with any other purposes of the
Government of India, any State Government or any of their
agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any
public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public
functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to
kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to
compel the Government of India, any State Government or
the Government of a foreign country or [an international or
inter-governmental organization or any other person to do
or abstain from doing any act; or],
commits a terrorist act.
[(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an
offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the
treaties specified in the Second Schedule.]
28. If a conspiracy is hatched with the ‘designated terrorist’ like
Goldy Brar to murder a person albeit a gangster within the precincts of a
Court which is considered to be the ‘Temple of Justice’ then such an act
would definitely create terror or would intend to create terror in the
minds of the people of the country. If inside Court premises a person is
not secure, then the ordinary citizens at large would be naturally shocked
and terrorised. It is apparent that the place of commission of the act was
chosen with the intent of striking terror in the minds of the people.
29. In the light of above discussion, prima facie, it cannot be
said that the appellant did not have the intent to strike terror or likely to
strike terror in the minds of the people or any section of the people of
India. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant regular
SHALINI
bail to the appellant- Maya Kumari.
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 13 of 14
CRA-D-1243-2024
30. It is clarified that the observations made through the instant
order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the
present appeal seeking regular bail and that the same would not be
construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
31. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE JUDGE
JULY 17, 2026
shalini
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SHALINI
2026.07.20 19:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 14 of 14
