High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRA-D/774/2023dismissed

Lovepreet Singh Alias Ravi v. National Investigation Agency

2026-03-16Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill,Ms. Justice Ramesh Kumari17 pages

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRA-D-774 of 2023 (O&M) Reserved on :26.02.2026 Pronounced on: 16.03.2026 Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi ... Appellant

Versus

National Investigation Agency ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI

Present:

Mr. Baldev Singh Maan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-NIA.

Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. RAMESH KUMARI, J.

In the instant appeal, the appellant-Lovepreet Singh @ Ravi (hereinafter referred to as an accused) has prayed for grant of regular bail in RC No. 10/2021/NIA/DLI dated 10.06.2021 arising out of FIR No. 38 dated 22.04.2021 under Sections 120-B, 115, 170, 201, 385, 386, 387 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 25(1A), 25(6), 25(7) and 29 of the Arms Act; and Section 17,18, 18-B, 20, 21 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, registered at Police Station Mehna, District Moga.

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 2 2.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh alias Prabh (A-6), presently in Surrey, Canada alongwith present appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi and other co-accused persons had formed a gang for threatening and extorting money from people under the directions of Hardeep Singh Nijjar (A-7), Chief of Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF). In pursuance of above criminal conspiracy, accused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi (A-1), Ram Singh alias Sona (A-2), Kamaljeet Sharma alias Kamal (A-3) committed targeted killings of prominent people and persons of other faiths, to create a sense of fear and disharmony in the society. Several arms, ammunition and vehicles were recovered from their possession on their disclosure statements while in police custody, which were used in different crimes committed by accused persons.

As per the criminal conspiracy hatched by Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh alias Prabh, accused-appellant Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi (A-1), alongwith Kamaljeet Sharma alias Kamal (A-3) actively participated in killing of gangster Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Lamha and disposed off his body after mutilating in furtherance of planning and conspiracy to execute criminal activities of extortion and killing. Investigation established that accused-appellant Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi being the part of criminal conspiracy with the association of other co-accused Ram Singh alias Sona (A-2), Kamaljeet Sharma alias Kamal (A-3) and Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh alias Prabh (A-6) knowingly held the amount, which was derived or obtained by the members of terror gang from the commission of terror acts/extortions.

To create terror in the minds of people,co-accused Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh alias Prabh (A-6), Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi (A-1) and Kamaljit Sharma alias Kamal (A-3) hatched a criminal conspiracy and killed Tejinder Singh alias Pinka of Supershine Jeans Showroom, Moga. Accusedappellant Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi (A-1) was arrested on 23.05.

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 3 Mehna, Moga in the instant case alongwith accused Ram Singh alias Sona (A2). Appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh is a classified class-1 prisoner in view of the provisions contained in the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Rules framed thereunder as he has committed heinous organized crime. 3.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh is that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. He had been arrested on 22.05.2021 and he is in judicial custody for the last more than four and half years. The investigation is over; challan has been presented and custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required. The culpability of the appellant is a matter of trial. The prosecution has cited 131 prosecution witnesses, out of which only 35 witnesses have been examined. The appellant has no link with other co-accused as he had not taken part in any illegal activity. The allegations against him are not true and he belongs to a responsible family and has deep roots in the society.

The apprehension of the prosecution that he shall flee from justice are without any basis. Because of his long incarceration he deserves the benefit of regular bail. It is further submitted that the appellant was earlier implicated in several FIRs but he was acquitted in those cases and as on date no case except the present case is pending against him.

Per contra, Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the NIA, submits that the appellant-accused had actively participated in the commission of offence. Regarding involvement of commission of offence, learned counsel for NIA contended that appellantaccused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi is the key associate of co-accused Arshdeep Singh (A-6) who is still absconding. He alongwith other co-accused Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh alias Prabh (A-6) formed a terror gang for threatening and extorting money from the local people under the directions of

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 4 Hardeep Singh Nijjar (A-7), Chief of Khalistan Tiger Force, who is reported to be no more. It is further contended that on the disclosure statement of appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi several incriminating arms, ammunition were recovered vide memos dated 23.05.2021, 24.05.2021, 01.06.2021 and 08.06.2021 which were used in the commission of offences. The appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched by co-accused Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh @ Prabh (A-6) alongwith Kamaljit Sharma alias Kamal (A-3) actively participated in the killing of gangster Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Lamha and disposed of his body after mutilating the same. FIR No. 62 dated 25.05.2021 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered at P.S.Badhni Kalan, Moga in this regard.

He knowingly held the amount which was obtained by the members of terror group of gangsters from the commission of terror acts of extortion. Appellantaccused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi also received terror funds of approximately Rs. 1.50 lacs at different intervals of time through Western Union Money Transfer sent by co-accused Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh. The appellant is a known gangster and has criminal background and he used to exert pressure on the witnesses and secured acquittal and the State of Punjab has filed appeals in those cases. Learned counsel for NIA further submits that appellant-accused is not entitled for concession of regular bail. 5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6.

As per the latest custody certificate, the appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi has undergone actual custody of four years eight months and 10 days. In the following eight cases, the appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi has been acquitted/discharged:- i) FIR No. 62/2021 dated 25.05.2021, under Sections 302/201/34 IPC, P.S.Badhni Kalan, District Moga.

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 5 ii) FIR No. 122/2020 dated 14.07.2020 under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC and u/s 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, P.S. City South Moga.

iii) FIR No. 9/2021 dated 09.02.2021 under Sections 307387/34 IPC and under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, P.S. Mehna.

iv) FIR No. 39/2020 dated 27.06.2020 under Sections 336, 427-B IPC, u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act, P.S.Hathour.

v) FIR No. 62/2021 dated 15.07.2021 under Sections 21C, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act, P.S. Khalra, vi) FIR No. 90 dated 19.09.2018 under Sections 302 IPC, P.S. Sadar Banga.

vii) FIR No. 24 dated 23.11.2021 under Sections 25-A of the Arms Act, Sections 3,4,5 of the Explosive Act; under Section 120-B IPC, P.S. State Special Operation Cell.

viii) FIR No. 55/2022 dated 30.05.2022 under Sections 387, 506 IPC, P.S.Mehna.

Besides the present case, appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh is facing trial in the following two cases:- i) FIR No. 11/2025 dated 09.02.2025 under Sections 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, P.S.Mehna.

ii) FIR No. 03/2026 dated 07.01.2026 under Sections 25,54,of the Arms Act and Sections 111(1), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 111(6), 308, 309, 351(2), 351(3), 61(2) of BNS-2023, 66, 66-F(1)(A) of IT Act, P.S.Mehna.

Learned State counsel also submitted a compendium of judgments vide which the appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh has been acquitted. In case FIR No. 120/2020 dated 14.07.2020, PW1 Dharamvir Singh who was brother of the deceased turned hostile and the present appellant alongwith two other coaccused was acquitted. In case FIR No. 9/2021 dated 09.02.2021, complainant Jashandeep Sharma did not support the prosecution case and therefore, the

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 6 appellant Lovepreet Singh alongwith co-accused has been acquitted. In case FIR No. 39/2020 dated 27.06.2020, PW4 Devender Singh supported the case of the prosecution but PW5 Satpal turned hostile and appellant alongwith coaccused Kamaljit alias Kamal was acquitted. 8.

Learned State counsel has drawn our attention towards Section 59(5) of the Prisons Act, 1894 which enables the Government to frame Rules for award of marks and shortening of sentences for prisoners. This Section further provides for classification of prisoners according to the intensity and gravity of the offences. According to this classification, class-1 prisoners are those who had committed heinous organized crimes or specially dangerous criminals; class-2 prisoners include dacoits or persons who commit heinous organized crimes and class-3 prisoners are those who do not fall within class 1 or class 2. The appellant-accused Lovepreet Singh has been put in the category of class-1 prisoner because of his role in the commission of offences and previous antecedents.

The record reveals that during investigation, on 23.05.202103, pistols of .32 bore, 38 live rounds of .32 bore, 01 local country made pistol of .315 bore, 05 live rounds of .315 bore and 2000 tablets make VERTRA-100 were recovered from motorcycle Bajaj CT 100 bearing registration No. PB29-AB-2642 of the appellant-accused and Ram Singh alias Rona (A-2) was pillion rider. No document regarding the ownership of the said motor cycle was recovered. During police custody, on 01.06.2021, the appellant-accused as per his disclosure statement got recovered one pistol of .32 bore alongwith one live cartridge and two magazines. On 03.06.2021, another motor cycle mark Passion bearing No. PB29Q-7035 had been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant-accused. The search of that motor cycle yielded recovery of a Dongle and sim card of Jio Company.

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 7 10.

Learned State counsel referred to Section 43D(5) of UA (P) Act and the relevant extract thereof reads as under:- "43D(5)-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall 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."

11.

A bare perusal of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act reveals that the provision imposes a specific statutory embargo on grant of bail to an accused person charged with offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act, which pertain to terrorist activities and terrorist organizations. The section mandates that unless the Court, upon perusal of the case diary or charge-sheet, is satisfied that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the accusations are prima facie true, bail cannot be granted. The legislative intent is clear: in cases involving terrorism related offences, the threshold for bail is heightened in comparison to other criminal cases. The safeguard to prevent misuse of this provision is built into the requirement that the State must be given an opportunity of being heard.

12.

While interpreting the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA in SLP (Crl.) No.10047 of 2023 titled as 'Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as follows:

!"#$ %&&

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 8

( ( %&& ) & * "#$ !

* "#$

' * "#$ !

)

( %&&

' +

!"#$ %&& -

1 %&& 2 ' 3

' *4*'

-3 5 /6

3 +

* + %& & .5

/ %& & ' + '

' ! "#$6 .

)"$

* .+ /6

,- 5 3-

' , %& & -

+ 5 3 .3 /

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 9

-. / -

3 8

9 .

/- +

. / -

&;<"<= $#

- >

<= ,

3 1 ? 3 .

! +-

3 6

. /" ,- - ' $ + * "$ !- + - * "#$-

< @ 5 !"#$ %& & - 1 +

%& &

> $;

3 A B5 - - .

(

( %&&

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 10 <

)

C <$ ;

". /$A @ '

- " ' $- -

, > <;

,A << ;

' A < ;

A << 1 . / 1 + . / & + - '

+ . / ! " # $% &

'( ) * < '

- 5 - '

1 +

!"#$ %& &

, +- + - 5 E

, -

%&& @

< < <- 2*

+ > + ,- *

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 11 " *< $> @ - +

+ ' . ( - /

- 0 8 < 9>@ -

' +

' 5

- 3 + -

+ ' ,

, +

# - "

)

$- ,

)

- "

1234%5

, +

** '

* ** ,+

1 5" 1 234%

+ 5

F 5.

( 36.789 1 2 4%

' - *! )& -

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 12 E G

( ( )& + ,'

*: 12 4% + + ' +

+- 1

, + + ' '

12 4%

- ; 1 2 4% 0' + ' +

' '

' + ' HH + - 1

' - F

13. Still further, in the matter of Keljroesatip Tep and Ors Vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) 6 SCC 58, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as follows:

; +

(( %&& '-

+F &!&-I @ &J!&

F %&& ;/ "

$ 1 +F

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 13

14. In Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 INSC 2 (SC), total five criminal appeals seeking regular bail were taken up, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court enlarged three accused on regular bail and dismissed criminal appeals of two accused, namely, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while analysing the individual role of each accused and differentiating between prime conspirators and others. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court emphasised that liberty enshrined under Article 21 commands the manner of application of the statute. Article 21of the Constitution does not dissolve the statutory restraint itself. It is held as under: "426. The present batch of appeals has required the Court to engage with questions that lie at the intersection of personal liberty and collective security.

The guarantee of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is of foundational importance, and no constitutional court can be unmindful of the gravity of restraining liberty before guilt is adjudicated. At the same time, the Constitution does not conceive liberty in isolation. The security of the community, the integrity of the trial process, and the preservation of public order are equally legitimate constitutional concerns. When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a special statute, the Court is required to undertake a difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither liberty nor security admits of absolutism.

427. While undertaking this exercise, the Court cannot proceed on any consideration except restricting the contours of inquiry confining to law. Where Parliament has prescribed a distinct statutory threshold for the grant of bail, and where the prosecution places prima facie material suggesting organised and deliberate activity affecting public

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 14 order and security of the Nation, the Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such material merely because incarceration is prolonged or liberty is invoked in the abstract. Equally, where continued detention is not shown to be necessary to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, the Court must not hesitate to restore liberty, subject to stringent conditions that safeguard the larger public interest.

428. The position of law that emerges may be stated with clarity. The right to personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 is of seminal importance, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern. At the same time, where Parliament has, in the context of a special statute, conditioned the grant of bail upon the satisfaction of a defined statutory threshold, a constitutional court cannot treat such restraint as avoidable. Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, represents a legislative judgment that offences alleged to implicate the security of the State warrant a distinct bail regime.

The constitutional role of the Court, therefore, is neither to mechanically enforce the statutory embargo nor to neutralise it by invocation of liberty as straight-jacket formula, but to apply it with disciplined scrutiny. Where the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, the statutory restraint must ordinarily operate. Where it does not, liberty must prevail. Article 21 thus commands the manner of application of the statute; it does not dissolve the statutory condition itself." 15.

As observed earlier, in this case, during investigation, the appellant-accused was found in possession of arms, ammunition and one motor cycle without documents and another motor cycle with one Dongle and sim card of Jio

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 15 Company. The appellant-accused has actively participated in the commission of offence of murder of Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha and sufficient incriminating evidence was collected to show that he alongwith other coaccused was member of a terrorist gang and considering his background he is classified as a class-1 prisoner. He actively participated in the commission of offence. In such a situation, long incarceration solely by itself, cannot be a ground for grant of regular bail.

16.

In view of the fact that the trial is in progress and considering the antecedents of the appellant-accused and the evidence collected against him during the investigation as well as considering the gravity of the offences, the appellantaccused Lovepreet Singh alias Ravi is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.

17.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the bail application filed by the appellant-accused and the same stands dismissed. 18.

Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case as the observations have been made for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application. Learned trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties. 19.

Since till date only 35 prosecution witnesses, out of cited 131 prosecution witnesses, have been examined by the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to take the following steps for expeditious conclusion of the trial: (i) The trial Court shall frame a schedule of dates in advance for summoning the witnesses and shall also endeavour to record the statements of the PWs whose presence is duly secured. Special Messengers be deputed for securing the presence of the prosecution witnesses. If deemed necessary, a letter may be written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, concerned,

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 16 for getting the needful done for ensuring timely presence of prosecution witnesses; and (ii) The prosecution is directed to ensure the presence of all the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court on the dates as may be fixed by the trial Court for recording prosecution evidence. The District Attorney concerned to take necessary steps for the purpose of securing the presence of the remaining prosecution witnesses. Pending application(s), if any, is/are also dismissed.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) ( RAMESH KUMARI ) JUDGE JUDGE 16.03.2026 ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

CRA-D-774-2023 (O&M) 17