Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parwinder Singh Alias Pindu vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 10 July, 2026
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-1020--2024 (O&M)
RESERVED ON: MAY 22, 2026
DATE
ATE OF DECISION
DECISION: JULY 10, 2026
Parwinder
inder Singh @ Pindu ...Appellant
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.05.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.07.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 14.07.2026
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. Pratham Sethi, Advocate,
For the appellant.
Mr.. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with
Mr
Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor and
Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate,
For respondent-U.T.
respondent Chandigarh
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
The appellant has challenged the order dated July 16, 2024,
passed by Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh
Chandigarh, whereby his bail
application in FIR No.29
No. of 26.02.2024 registered under Section
25,54,59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 419, 471, 201, 120
120-B of Indian
SHALINI Penal Code,, 1860 (hereinafter
einafter referred to as “IPC“) and Sections 17, 18,
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 1 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
18-B, 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter
referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh, has
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel
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 two mobile phones, no other
incriminating material has been alleged to have recovered from him
him.
There was no legally admissible material on record to establish the
involvement of appellant with any “designated
“designated terrorist
terrorist” which could
even suggest that the accused has committed an offence under the
UAPA.
3. He argued that the case of prosecution, at best, was that the
appellant harboured two members of a gang
gang- one Sunny @ Sachin @
Maddy Manchanda and Umang who purportedly were in touch with the
designated terrorist like Goldy Brar. Under Section 19 of the UAPA, the
punishment for harbouring any purported
purported terrorist was three years upto
life imprisonment and the appellant is in custody for more than two
years. Therefore, on the basis of prolonged custody alone, the appellant
should be released on bail.
4. He has relied on the judgment of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur
v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994)4
)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 is
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 2 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
present in this case. When such material is absent
absent, the accused cannot be
charged by invoking provisions of UAPA.
5. He has further placed reliance on the judgment
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 aand another, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 498,
498 Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and
another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885
885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @
Pradesh, reported in
Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
Maharashtra and another, 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
Constitutio of India.
6. Issue notice of motion.
7. The Court had directed the State to file a comprehensive
affidavit after filing of the supplementary challan
challan, vide order dated
January 15, 2026. Pursuant to the said direction, the State has filed a
comprehensive affidavit of Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police.
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that appellant along
with co-accused
accused is involved in anti-national
national activities. The prosecution’s
case is that on the basis of secret information, two boys were
apprehended at around 11:45 pm on February 25, 2024 near Bus Stand,
Sector-43,
43, Chandigarh. The said boys were riding a white Activa without
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 3 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
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 trouser
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
Sections 25/54/59 of the
Arms Act against Sunny and Umang. Upon disclosure made by both
Sunny and Umang,
Uma the present appellant-Parwinder
Parwinder Singh @ Pindu along
with Kailash
ailash Chauhan @ Tiger, Anmolpreet Singh and 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.
9. Upon disclosure and identification by Sunny, the present
appellant-Parwinder
Parwinder Singh @ Pindu was arrested on February 28, 2024
from TDI City, Sector-111,
Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A Verna car bearing
registration No.CH01-BP-6918
No.CH01 6918 and two mobile phones (one light grey
coloured Apple phone with sim and another Oneplus Skyblue coloured
phone with sim)
im) were recovered from him and taken into police custody.
10. On the very same day i.e February 28, 2024, Anmolpreet
Singh was arrested from TDI City,
City Sector-111,
111, SAS Nagar, Mohali upon
disclosure and identification by Sunny that Anmolpreet was his friend
and aide
de of Goldy Brar.
Brar
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 4 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
11. One Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma was arrested near
One
Counter no. 30, Sector
Se 43 Bus Stand on February 29, 2024 also upon
secret information and identification by Sunny
Sunny. One slate colour
backpack containing advocate’s dress i.e. black colour
coloured trousers, one
black blazer and one white shirt was recovered from her
her. 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
ISBT-43,
Chandigarh.
12. Upon secret information and identification by Maya @
Kashish @ Pooja Sharma, one Baljeet Singh was apprehended from
House No.177/1,
177/1, Phase-3,
Phase 3, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) and a mobile
phone VIVO (black
(b colour with sim) was recovered from him along with
a Splender bike. The case of prosecution is that upon instructions from
Goldy Brar, co-accused
co Sunny, Umang and Maya had done recee at the
premises of District Courts,
Court 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
ommunicate with terrorists
terrorist like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan
through his phone on Signal App.
13. The allegation against the appellant is that the mobile
phones which were recovered from him were used by him to converse
with the terrorists
terrorist like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through Facebook
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 5 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
messenger and the appellant worked as per their instructions. On
February 09, 2024 the appellant with the intention of harbouring
terrorists had gone to Chandigarh railway station and brought Sunny and
Umang (members of Goldy Brar’s gang) to his flat at TDI City, SAS
Nagar, Mohali in his Verna car and thereafter shifted them to his friend
Anmolpreet’s flat. A sum of Rs.49,900/-
Rs.49,900/ was sent by Goldy Brar and
Vicky Chauhan in SBI account of appellant-Parwinder
Parwinder Sin
Singh @ Pindu on
February 12, 2024 and the same was handed over by him to Sunny and
Umang. On February 14, 2024, again the appellant receive
received Rs.16,000/-
from Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan in his SBI account which was
handed over to Sunny and Umang.
14. The prosecution has relied upon the account statement of the
appellant for the relevant period to bring home the guilt of the accused in
their comprehensive affidavit. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant
should not be enlarged on bail before the witnesses
witnesses are fully examined.
15. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
16.. At the outset, it is appropriate to refer to Section 43(
43(D) of the
UAPA. Section 43-D
43 D of the UAPA is reproduced hereinafter for ready
reference:-
“43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code.
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.
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 6 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
(2) Sectionon 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
sub section (2),
(2),–
(a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety ddays” 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:–
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 pur
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–
that
(a) the reference in sub-section
section (1) thereof
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 tthe
State Government, as the case may be”; and
(b) the reference in sub-section
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 4388 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
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 7 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code 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
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 accusaaccusation against such
person is prima facie true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub 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
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 IIndian
citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or
illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for
reasons to be recorded in writing.”
17. As per Section 43-D(5)
43 (5) of the UAPA
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
an opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such
relief and if the Court,
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)
43 D(6) further stipulates that restri
restrictions for grant of
bail specified in Section 43-D(5)
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.
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 8 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
18. From the comprehensive affidavit of Shri Dhiraj Kumar,
Deputy Superintendent
uperintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police, it
transpires that the bank statements relating to Account
Nos.50530100008707, 50530200000222 dated February 29, 2024 were
obtained by the prosecution and upon analyzing the transaction details, it
was found that the appellant had made three transactions of Rs.15,000/-
each from ATM machines on February 12, 2024 and handed over the
money directly to Umang within the ATM booth. Additionally, a
certified copy of the bank statement from SBI pertaining to Account
No.00000055148152719 was obtained and it was found that on February
12, 2024, a sum of Rs.49,900/-
Rs.49,900/ and on February 14, 2024, a sum of
Rs.16,000/- in cash were transferred to the account holder Parwinder
Singh @ Pindu through a Cash Deposit
Deposit Machine.
19. Upon analysis of the data by the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory (CFSL), from the six mobile phones retrieved from the
appellant and his co-accused,
co accused, one video was found on the appellant’s
mobile phone wherein an audio/video of conv
conversation on another mobile
phone has been captured. An attentive hearing of the conversation on
messenger audio would indicate that said Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan
were conversing amongst each other on February 03, 2024 and the said
conversation was downloaded
downloaded on the appellant’s mobile phone. The
voice sample of Goldy Brar was downloaded and put in a pen drive and
the same matched with the audio/video available on youtube of Goldy
Brar’s interview. The examination report by CFSL, Chandigarh is
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 9 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
appended with
th the comprehensive affidavit filed by the U.T, Chandigarh.
Goldy Brar, Rohit Godara and Vicky Chauhan have all been declared
proclaimed offenders by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Chandigarh vide order dated April 30, 2025. Their arrests are yet to be
effected. Therefore, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that there
is no material on record, even prima facie, to connect the appellant with
designated terrorists like Goldy Brar. Furthermore, the Investigating
Officer took a certified copy of the tax invoice dated February 12, 2024
in the name of Umang from Shop No.139 and 226
226-A, Elante Mall,
Chandigarh along with CCTV footage evidencing purchasing of
Advocate’s uniform and a Certificate under Section 65
65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and
and took the same in police custody by preparing a
memo duly signed by the witnesses.
20. 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 his co-accused
accused Sunny, Umang and Maya to
commit crime of murder of a gangster-
gangster Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana and
prima facie evidence has been provided in the comprehensive affidavit to
show his links with Sunny and Umang and ultimately with Goldy Brar, a
designated terrorist. 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 catena of judgments, including
including the ones cited by learned counsel for
the appellant that a long custody itself would entitle the accused under
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 10 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
UAPA to be granted bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
21. In the present case, the
he appellant has undergone an actual
sentence of 02 years and 05
0 months and this is not a case where the State
has not been able to attribute any specific role
role, prima facie, to the
appellant indicating his involvement with any offence under the UAPA
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.
22. 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-
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,
country,-
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances
or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal
weapons or poisonous or noxious gas
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
(ii)
(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
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 11 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
(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
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 organisation or any other person to do
inter-governmental
or abstain from doing any act; or],
commits a terrorist act.
[(2)
(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an
offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the
trea
treaties specified in the Second Schedule
chedule.]
23. If a conspiracy is hatched with a ‘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
Temple of Justice
Justice’ then such an act
would definitely create terror or would intend to create terror in the
minds of the people of the country. Inside Court premises also, if a
person is not secure, then the ordinary citizens at large would be naturally
shocked and terrorised.
terrori d. It is apparent that the place of commission of the
act was chosen with the intent
inten of striking terror in the minds of the
people.
24. 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
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 12 of 13
CRA-D-1020
1020 of 2024 (O&M)
India. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant regular
bail to the appellant-
appellant Parwinder Singh @ Pindu.
25. It is clarified that the observation
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 merit
merits of the case.
26. The appeal is
i dismissed in the above terms.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE JUDGE
JULY 10, 2026
202
shalini
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SHALINI
2026.07.14 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh Page 13 of 13
