The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday granted regular bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for an alleged plot to target Hindu leaders in Punjab, a decision that hinges on the lack of evidence beyond the accused’s own statements.
Court’s reasoning and procedural backdrop
Justices Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur observed that the appellant, identified as Nishan Singh, had spent 3.7 years in custody while only one of sixteen prosecution witnesses had been examined.
They noted that the disclosure statement offered by the accused could fall under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or be treated as a custodial confession barred by Section 25.
The FIR, filed in Mohali, charged Singh and co‑accused Yuvraj Singh with offenses under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the UAPA, Section 120‑B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
It was based on secret information linking local gangsters to the banned Babbar Khalsa International, which in turn was said to be operated by Paramjit Singh, a figure also associated with the outlawed Sikhs for Justice.
Related: GST notices must specify fraud for extended periods
According to the filing, the police recovered a pistol with four live cartridges and a motorcycle lacking a registration plate when they arrested Singh and Yuvraj Singh on 17 January 2023.
During interrogation, the three men allegedly described a plan to kill Hindu leaders in Khanna and Mohali and a “comrade” leader in Jalandhar, with money allegedly supplied by Amritpal Singh.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied bail, citing the weapon recovery and the alleged murder plot. Singh’s counsel argued that his name was not in the original FIR and that the pistol and cartridges were seized from both Singh and Yuvraj Singh while they rode the same bike, with Singh driving.
Evidence gaps and bail decision
The High Court noted that, aside from Singh’s admissions, the State had not presented any documentary or forensic evidence linking him to the alleged gangsters.
In addition, the court highlighted Singh’s lack of prior criminal history, aside from a single prison offence arising from a scuffle while in custody. The judges weighed the length of pre‑trial detention, the stage of the trial, and the questionable admissibility of the disclosure statement before granting regular bail, without commenting on the merits of the accusations.
Related: Does Florida Require Mediation in Personal Injury Cases?
Jagdeep Singh had been discharged.
The court also mentioned that the number of witnesses examined and the period of Singh’s custody were not disputed.
From a practical standpoint, the bail order means Singh can now seek a normal life while the trial proceeds, a relief after nearly four years of confinement without a full evidentiary record. It also signals to the prosecution that a stronger factual basis is required to keep a suspect detained for such an extended period.
Legal analysts note that the decision highlights the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing UAPA cases, where the balance between national security concerns and individual liberty can be delicate. The court’s focus on the absence of a financial or weapons trail aligns with established standards for bail in serious offenses.
External references on the UAPA and Babbar Khalsa International can be found on Wikipedia and the Babbar Khalsa International page, respectively.