High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRA-D/1396/2023dismissed

Bhola Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-11-17Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill,Ms. Justice Ramesh Kumari33 pages

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on : 03.11.2025 Pronounced on : 17.11.2025 CRA-D No. 1396 of 2023 (O&M) 1.

Bhola Singh .....Appellant versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CRA-D No. 1586 of 2023 (O&M) 2.

Baljit Singh @ Mahna ....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CRA-D No. 695 of 2024 (O&M) 3.

Harjinder Singh @ Raju .....Appellant versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present :

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate, Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate;

Ms. Reema, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D No. 1396 of 2023.

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the appellant in CRA D No. 1586 of 2023.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA D No. 695 of 2024.

Mr. Siddharth Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ****

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 2 RAMESH KUMARI, J.

By way of this common order, all these three appeals are disposed of as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2.

Criminal Appeals No. 1586 of 2023 is preferred by the appellantBaljit Singh @ Mahna challenging the order dated 21.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Faridkot. Appeal Nos. 1396 of 2023 and 695 of 2024 have been filed by the appellants, namely Bhola Singh and Harjinder Singh @ Raju against the two separate impugned orders of the same date i.e. 29.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Faridkot.

The above noted orders dismissing the applications of these appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') are rendered in case arising out of FIR No. 228 dated 10.11.2022 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120B, 201, 473, 411 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 16,18,20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'UAPA Act'), registered at Police Station City Kotakpura.

Briefly stated, the facts germane to the present appeals are as follow:- a) On 10.11.2022, at about 07.15 P.M. murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, husband of complainant Simran, took place and the above referred FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of his wife/complainant Simran. No person was named by complainant Simran in her statement dated 10.11.2022 recorded by Sub Inspector Pritam Singh.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 3 b) The statement of Simran wife of deceased Pardeep Singh Kataria Raju Dodhi, is in Punjabi script and when translated to English, it makes the following reading:-

# $ %

&!&

' %(

)

!*"

+,-. ('

(

' # 0

' ( 2/13

# )

) '

)

3 4 ' 0

) /

3( )

)

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 4

5 5

' '

7 (c) After registration of FIR, inquest report with respect to the dead body of Pardeep Singh Kataria alias Raju Dodhi son of Jaspal Singh @ Sadhu Singh, was prepared. Post mortem examination of the dead body was got conducted and the post mortem proceedings were also videographed by the Board of Doctors under the chairmanship of Dr. Ravdeep Singh and by Dr. Atul and Dr. Arun, as members. The dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of deceased. On the basis of application moved by the family of deceased regarding donation of eyes, the dead body was handed over to Dr. Supreet for further proceedings where one part of eye was retrieved and the dead body was again subjected to post mortem examination by the Board of Doctors. The proceedings of post mortem were video-graphed and dead body was handed over to legal heirs of deceased.

(d) The clothes of the deceased duly sealed with seal, post mortem report and videography recording of the post mortem proceedings was also obtained in the memory card from the Doctor by SI Pritam Singh. SI Pritam Singh inspected the spot, prepared site plan and lifted the empty cartridges. He also lifted blood with cotton swabs from the shop of deceased as well as from the adjoining shop and from the shop of Amar Singh. Plain soil was also lifted.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 5 separately parceled, sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal and taken in police possession.

(e) Motor cycle with broken rear number plate and having number HR14-A-4083 on the front number plate was also taken into possession from the street near the shop of deceased.

(f) During the course of investigation, SI Pritam Singh received information that two unclaimed motor cycles are parked near the truck union, Bajakhana and these can be connected with the incident of this case. One motor cycle make Hero Splendor without number and another motor cycle of Hero Honda Super Spleder without number and whose chassis number could not be decipherable, black coloured with front light part stained with were taken into possession by SI Pritam Singh. Samples of blood lifted from the motor cycle were also sealed by SI Pritam Singh and other proceedings were conducted.

(g) On 12.11.2024, Inspector Lachhman Singh, SHO of Police Station, City South Moga, telephonically informed SI Pritam Singh that during investigation in case FIR No. 235 dated 04.11.2022 under Sections 387, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City South Moga, Harjinder Singh @ Raju son of Nirmal Singh @ Nimma, resident of Manavan Police Station Kot Ise Kha District Moga, after seeing the photographs of murder of deceased of this case, identified the assailants as Manpreet Singh and Bhupinder Singh and also informed that murder was committed at the instance of Goldi Brar who resides abroad and he was in contact with Goldi Brar and Goldi Brar informed him about the known persons of the area and he gave the contact numbers of Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Bhupinder Singh. On the basis of investigation and other secret enquiry,

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 6 Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Bhupinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Harjinder Singh @ Raju, Nirmal Singh @ Nimma and Satinderjit Singh @ Goldi Brar were nominated as accused in this case.

(h) During investigation of FIR No. 323 dated 23.10.2022 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Special Cell, Delhi, by SI Ankur Sojwal, accused Jatinder Singh @ Jeetu son of Kashmiri, resident of Banyani Police Station Klasaur, District Rohtak, Mohit Chauhan son of Satbir, resident of Ward No.3, village Dhanana, District Bhiwani, Haryana and Manish Nand Lal @ Goli son of Deepak Kumar, resident of Panna Chopan Village Boar, District Rohtak admitted their involvement in the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi and SI Ankur Sojwal informed about it telephonically to the police of Police Station Kotakpura on 12.11.2022 and these accused were nominated in this case.

(i) CCTV footages of the areas around the commission of offence were checked and taken into possession vide separate DVB by SI Pritam Singh.

(j) On 14.11.2022, Harjinder Singh @ Raju was arrested in this case after obtaining his transit warrant from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. (k) On 17.11.2022, Juveniles (M.C. and M.A.) (juveniles identity withheld) were taken in protective custody and were lodged in Juvenile Home, Faridkot. Juveniles were questioned with the permission of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot and they admitted their involvement in the commission of offence. They also suffered their disclosure statements that after murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, Baljit Singh @ Mana son of Gurmeet Singh assisted them to escape and accused

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 7 Baljit Singh @ Mana was nominated as accused vide Rapat No. 35/17.11.2022.

(l) On 17.11.2022, accused Baljit Singh @ Mana was arrested in this case. Rs. 13,000/- was recovered during personal search of accused Baljit Singh @ Mana. On the same day, accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi were arrested and Rs. 7000/- were recovered during personal search of accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi. (m) Accused Bhola Singh and Vikcy Chauhan were nominated vide Rapat No. 70 dated 18.11.2022 on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani and accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi. (n) On 19.11.2022, on the basis of disclosure statement and identification of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani, one pistol 9 MM and 4 live cartridges and on the basis of disclosure statement and identification of co-accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi, one pistol .

30 bore pistol and 3 live cartridges and one white cap were got recovered. (o) On 19.11.2022, accused Vicky Chauhan son of Balwinder Singh was arrested and on the basis of his interrogation and report of indulgence, accused Swaran Singh @ Sunny son of Amrik Singh was nominated in this case vide DDR No. 54 dated 19.11.2022. Accused Swaran Singh @ Sunny was also arrested on 19.11.2022 and one Car Ritz bearing registration No. PB10DZ-5283 alongwith registration certificate was got recovered which was used to ferry the accused to a safe place after commission of offence. (p) Accused Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda son of Mahbub Khan, resident of Rohtak was nominated in this case vide Rapat No. 36 of 20.11.2022 as a shooter (who actually fired shots) on the basis of interrogation of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Money and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 8 (q) Co-accused Pawandeep Singh @ Pavna was also nominated vide Rapat No. 58 dated 21.11.2022 on the basis of interrogation of co-accused Swaran Singh @ Sunny, Manpreet Singh @ Mony and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi, who confessed that before murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, assailants stayed at Avtar Palace, Jaito, where Pawandeep @ Pavna son of Harpreet Singh and another person came in Swift car and handed over 100 cartridges of 9.mm and .30 bores to Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi, who kept 9 mm and 30 bore 100 cartridges and returned 32 bore cartridges to Pawandeep Singh @ Pavna and only Pawandeep knew about the same.

(r) On 22.11.2022, accused Bhola Singh was arrested on the basis of production warrant as he was in custody in modern Jail, Faridkot. On the same day, co-accused Pawandeep @ Pavna was arrested and on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Pawandeep @ Pavna, co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Bhau son of Sukhpal Singh, resident of village Dhapai, District Faridkot was nominated vide Rapat No. 68 dated 22.11.2022. (s) During investigation of this case, on 23.11.2022 accused Bhola Singh confessed his involvement in the commission of offence and vide Rapat No. 80 dated 23.11.2022, offences punishable under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA Act was added.

(t) On 26.11.2022, co-accused Pawandeep @ Pavna as per his statement got recovered 50 cartridges of 32 bore pistol to the police (u) On 02.12.2022 co-accused Ramzan Khan @ Raj Hooda was produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot from Central Jail, Jaipur on the basis of production warrant since he was lodged in the said jail in connection with FIR No. 473 dated 20.11.2022 under Sections 307, 332,

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 9 353, 216, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(v) On 09.12.2022, co-accused Jitender @ Jitu was produced in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate of Delhi Police on the basis of his production warrant. On the basis of disclosure statement and identification of co-accused Jitender Singh @ Jeetu, one Scooter No. HR02-AM-3585 used in the commission of offence was got recovered on 14.12.2022. On the basis of information given by accused Jitender Singh @ Jeetu and other investigation, co-accused Parvinder Singh @ Kala and Manpreet Singh @ Lata were nominated as accused vide DDR Rapat No. 61 dated 15.12.2022. (w) On 18.12.2022, above named accused Parvinder Singh @ Kala and Manpreet Singh @ Lata were arrested and during investigation it was found that accused Parvinder Singh @ Kala used his Car No.

PB11-CR-5757 to facilitate escape of the accused till Bajakhana after commission of the offence by them. During investigation, both the above named accused also suffered their disclosure statements on 20.12.2022 that after offence of murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi on 10.11.2022, they took the assailants Jitender Singh @ Jeetu and his companions in Car No. PB-11-CR5757 towards the fields of Manpreet Singh @ Lata. Jitender Singh @ Jeetu had fired arm injury on his foot and shoes/socks and the cotton used to clean the injury of Jitender Singh @ Jeetu, cover of pillow, coat & tie of companions of Jitender Singh @ Jeetu can be got recovered by him and the same were got recovered.

(x) The case property collected during the course of investigation was deposited with MHC. The ownership of vehicles recovered during investigation was got verified from the concerned registration authorities. The

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 10 incriminating substance was deposited with FSL and FSL reports were obtained.

(y) After completion of investigation, challan against the accused persons, namely (i) Harjinder Singh @ Raju (ii) Baljeet Singh @ Mana (iii) Manpreet Singh @ Mani (iv) Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy (v) Vicky Chauhan (vi) Swaran Singh @ Sunny (vii) Bhola Singh (viii) Pawandeep Singh alia Pavna (ix) Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda (x) Jatinder @ Jeetu (xi) Parwinder Singh @ Kala (xii) Manpreet Singh @ Lata whereas challan against cojuvenile, namely, (MN) was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board whereas 2nd Juvenile, namely, (MC) was found to be adult as his date of birth was 14.07.2023. Offence punishable under section 201 IPC was also invoked against co-accused (MC) (who was earlier declared as juvenile) and coaccused juvenile (MC), Jitender @ Jeetu and Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda because they did not got recovered the weapons used in the commission of offence.

Accused Satinder Jit @ Goldy Brar and Harman Singh could not be arrested. Challan against two juveniles was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Vide order dated 28.11.2023, accused, namely, Harjinder Singh @ Raju, Baljit Singh @ Mana, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy, Vicky Chauhan, Swaran Singh @ Sunny, Bhola Singh, Pawandeep Singh @ Pavna, Ramjan Khan @ Raj Hooda, Jatinder Singh @ Jeetu, Parwinder Singh @ Kala, Manpreet Singh @ Lata and Harpreet Singh Bhau were charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 16,18,20 of UAPA Act and under sections 148 IPC, 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC, 307 read with section 120-B IPC201 read with section 120-B IPC,

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 11 under section 212 read with section 120-B IPC, under section 473 read with section 120-B IPC, 411 IPC, 25 of the Arms Act, to which they all did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Learned trial Court dismissed the regular bail application of accused Bhola Singh on the ground that while Bhola Singh was in custody, accused Manpreet Singh @ Money used to visit to meet him in jail frequently and followed him on the dates fixed for hearing. In jail Bhola Singh got interacted with one Goldy Brar to commit murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, a Dera Premi of Dera Sachha Sauda and then accused Goldy Brar, who resides abroad, deputed Bhola Singh for the purpose of recce and for supply of arms and ammunitions to local persons of Faridkot. Bhola Singh inconnivance with his brother-in-law Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy planned to proceed further for committing the said murder. The murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi was committed on 10.11.

2022 and whole plan for commission of offence was made after consultation with various persons/miscreants, residing in India and abroad. Considering the nature of the allegations and gravity of the offences and the fact that accused was involved in the commission of offence under UAPA, the bail application of accused Bhola Singh was dismissed on 29.08.2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Faridkot. 8.

On similar grounds, the bail application of accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna was dismissed on 21.09.2023 and bail application of accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju was also dismissed on 29.08.2023 by the learned trial Court.

Shri B.S.Sidhu, learned Senior counsel appearing for accused Bhola Singh contended that the learned trial Court committed error in

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 12 dismissing the bail application of accused Bhola Singh. There is not even an iota of evidence against accused Bhola Singh and FIR is registered against unknown persons and accused Bhola Singh has been nominated on the alleged disclosure statement of co-accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy where both these co-accused in their alleged disclosure statements did not name accused Bhola Singh. Accused Bhola Singh is in jail since the date of his arrest on 22.11.2022 and had cooperated with the police during investigation and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Till date, the prosecution has examined only one witness out of total 105 witnesses.

The police has also added Sections 16,18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against accused Bhola Singh. Section 16 of UAPA, 1967 prescribes punishment for terrorist act. Section 18 of UAPA prescribes punishment for conspiracy etc. whereas Section 20 prescribes punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organization. Neither the accused is a member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization nor he committed any terrorist act. He further contended that if it is not proved that accused was member of the organization as mentioned in UAPA Act, Section 20 of UAPA could not be invoked against accused Bhola Singh. There is no evidence in the FIR or challan supplied under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to link the accused with accused Goldy Brar (absconder).

The mobile allegedly used by the accused Bhola Singh has not come on record. Accused Bhola is involved in eight other cases and out of these eight cases, he has been acquitted in two cases and convicted in one case whereas trial is going on in the remaining cases.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 13 relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Maulana Rashadi vs. State of U.P. (2012) 3 SCC 382, wherein it has been held as under:-

(

3 '

' 3

# 3

7 Learned counsel for accused Bhola Singh also contended that if given benefit of regular bail, the accused will not leave India without permission of the Court and completion of trial is likely to take time and therefore, he vehemently prayed for release of accused Bhola Singh on regular bail.

10.

Learned defence counsel Mr. Kamal Narula, appearing for accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna also contended that accused Baljit Singh is not named in the FIR. Accused Baljit Singh was arrested on 17.11.2022 and is in custody since then and trial Court rejected his bail application without assigning any reasons. The police has wrongly invoked sections 16,18 and 20 of UAPA, 1967 against the accused and there was no conversation of accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna with accused Goldy Brar (since absconder) or Baljinder Singh to link him with the commission of offence of murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi. The accused is involved in four other cases but his involvement in these cases cannot have any effect upon his regular bail in this case. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Maulana Mohd. (supra). He further submits that accused will not leave India

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 14 without permission of the trial Court and he vehemently prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and also prayed for release of accused on regular bail.

11.

Shri Sandeep Singh Bakolia, learned defence counsel appearing for accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju also contended that accused is not named in the FIR; he has not committed the alleged offences; he is in custody since 14.11.2022; he has been falsely implicated and no offences punishable under Sections, 16,18 and 20 of UAPA Act is made out against the accused and he has been named in this case only because he contacted with accused Goldy Brar (absconder) and prosecution presumes that he was part of the conspiracy for committing the alleged offences. The order of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside because there are no specific allegations against accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju which could connect him with the alleged offences. No recovery of incriminating substance has been effected from him.

Challan has already been presented before the trial Court and Section 43(5) of UAPA Act will not be applicable. Accused is involved in five other cases. He has also contended that accused if enlarged on bail shall not leave India and abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned defence counsel has also relied upon order dated 01.02.2021 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021 (Union of India vs.

9((( :- 3

9((

8;1 9((

( :- 3

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 15 12.

Controverting the allegations against the appellants, Shri Sidharth Attri, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab relied upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, confessional statements, ziminies in the police diary and the fact that all the accused have already been charge-sheeted by the trial Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 and in view of the chequered criminal history of all the accused persons, he vehemently prayed for dismissal of all the three bail applications. 13.

The contention of learned defence counsel that the accused are not members of any terrorist organization and therefore, no terrorist act is committed by cannot be accepted. The term 'Terrorist Act' is defined in Section 15 of the UAPA, 1967 which reads as under:- "-.)

<8=>-?@%

.='

'< >? '

< > ? ' #

B > ?

' '

B > ?

B > ? '

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 16 > ?

5 '

B >?

5 '

5 5 C=

+=2/ <4

'< >?

0 5A

3 5 B This section clearly stipulates that the following acts are termed as terrorist act:- "

14.

The abovesaid act should be done by using "bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal ............................... to cause or likely to cause- (i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or...................."

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 17 15.

In the case in hand, death of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi is caused by use of fire arms for the simple reason that he was Sacha Sauda premi i.e. follower to a religious sect based in District Sirsa (Haryana) and he was accused in case FIR No. 128 dated 12.10.2015 under Section 295A IPC, P.S. Bajakhana and it is conceded that in the said FIR Shakti Singh was also one of the accused and the allegations against them were sacrilege of the sect Aang (page) of Shri Guru Granth Sahib. Accused Bhola Singh was already in custody for causing bodily harm to Dera Premi Shakti Singh son of Basant Singh and committing recce and said Dera Premi Shakti Singh is accused in three cases i.e. FIR No. 117 dated 25.09.2015 under Section 295-A IPC, P.S. Bajakhana, FIR No. 128 dated 12.10.2015 under Section 295-A IPC, P.S.

Bajakhana and another case FIR No. 63 dated 02.06.2015 under sections 380, 295-A IPC, P.S. Bajakhana, all three registered at Police Station Bajakhana. The common thread is that deceased Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi is one of the accused in FIR No. 128 dated 12.10.2015 under section 295-A IPC. FIR Nos. 128 and 117 pertain to sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib.

16.

Undoubtedly, accused Bhola Singh is not named by co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Money in his confessional statements dated 19.11.2022 and 21.11.2022 and Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy in his confessional statement dated 21.11.2022. Accused Bhola Singh was named during investigation by them regarding which a zimini was entered in the police record by the Investigating Officer and for this reason accused Bhola Singh does not find his name in two confessional statements made by accused Manpreet Singh @ Money and one confessional statement of co-accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy. As per prosecution allegations, accused Manpreet @ Money got

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 18 recovered one pistol .9 mm and four live cartridges of 9mm whereas accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy got recovered one pistol of 32 bore and three live cartridges of said bore and one white cap in which human hairs were stuck. 17.

As observed earlier, accused Bhola Singh was already in custody when he was named in this case. During investigation of this case, he also suffered a confessional statement before the investigating agency of Police Station City Kotakpura. His confessional statement is in Punjabi script and when translated in English, it makes the following reading:- 5D

E ' D E 5' D# E ' 3'

E '

E D'

E 6

*A " E *# )

G > ?

# '

5 D

3 %

(

) '

" E *#

7 18.

Accused Bhola Singh during investigation on 24.11.2022 also confessed about destroying of mobile phone after burning and flushing the ash in toilet and the said mobile phone was used by him to converse with Goldy

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 19 Brar for the purpose of committing the crime of murder. Thus there are two confessional statements of accused Bhola Singh on record and also the fact that he was already in custody in another criminal case for house trespass, recce of the house of Shakti Singh and conspiring to cause bodily harm to him and said Shakti Singh was facing criminal trial in three cases and in one criminal case FIR No. 128 regarding sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib, deceased Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, victim of this case, was also accused alongwith said Shakti Singh. His confessional statement coupled with the fact that accused attempted to cause bodily harm to Shakti Singh and committed recce of his house and committed house trespass, it prima-facie proved that his intention was to cause harm to the followers of Dera Sacha Sauda and he succeeded in causing murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi. Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi was not only a Sacha Sauda follower but also accused of causing sacrilege of revered text. 19.

As observed earlier, co-accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna was arrested on 17.11.2022 and he was nominated on the basis of facts which came on record during interrogation of juveniles MC and MN that accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna assisted the assailants to abscond from the spot of crime after committing the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi. Thus, there is a statement of juveniles against accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna in helping them in the commission of offence by assisting to abscond them from the spot to save them from police.

20.

So far as the allegations against accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju are concerned, he was allegedly interacting with accused Goldy Brar (since absconder) for committing the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, when he was in custody in some other case. Police during investigation

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 20 also found that accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju was instrumental in disclosing the name of other assailants of this case to accused Goldy Brar and Goldy Brar came in touch with those through accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju.

21.

Accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju also suffered a disclosure statement that he asked co-accused Goldy Brar that they have to do religious work and familiarized accused Goldy Brar of many persons of Faridkot and Kotakpura. He also came in touch with visitors of Bhola Singh and he got numbers of those persons (visitors of Bhola Singh). He also facilitated talk of accused Manpreet Singh @ Money and Bhupinder Singh with accused Goldy Brar and after murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi informed that he has also contributed in religious task.

22.

13 accused of this case including the present three accusedappellants are charged by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 for the commission of offence under Sections 20,18,16 of UAP Act, Sections 120-B, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 120-B IPC. Accused Bhola Singh is also charged under section 201 read with Section 120B IPC for causing disappearance of his mobile phone through which he was in touch with co-accused Satinder Pal Singh @ Goldy Brar (absconder and yet not arrested) with intention of screening himself and other offenders from legal punishment and accused are also charged under Section 212 read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 273 read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 411 IPC as motor cycle No. HR14-A-4083 during investigation was found to be belonging to Udey Singh and accused Manpreet Singh @ Money, Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy, Ramzan Khan @ Raj Hooda, Jitender Singh @ Jeetu and Juveniles (MC) and (MN) kept the same in their possession for going or

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 21 having the reason to believe the same to have stolen. Accused Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy, Manpreet Singh @ Money and Pawandeep @ Pavna are also charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. This means that prima-facie case under the provisions of these sections against all the accused including present three accused were found to be made out. The learned trial Court rightly held that allegations against the accused are serious in nature. Accused while being in custody accessed the mobile phones, interacted with other co-accused who were in custody, helped accused Satinder Pal Singh @ Goldy Brar to contact with local people of Faridkot and conspired to carry out the murder of Pardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi who himself was accused in case FIR No.

128 under Section 249 IPC of sacrilege of holy book of Sikh religion. Moreover, all the three accused had a chequred history. 10 criminal cases were registered accused Bhola Singh and he was acquitted in two cases, discharged in one case and is facing trial in remaining cases. 10 Criminal cases were registered against accused Baljit Singh @ Mahna and out of these 10 cases, he has been discharged in three criminal cases, acquitted in one case and is facing trial in remaining cases. FIR No. 341 of 25.09.2023 is registered against him under Section 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, 42/52-A of Prisons Act and FIR No. 37 of 2025 is registered against him under Section 52-A of Prisons Act. Accused Harjinder Singh @ Raju has already been convicted in three cases and acquitted in six cases, discharged in two cases. Besides the present FIR No.

228 dated 10.11.2022, he is facing trial in case FIR No. 95 of 2021 under Section 52-A of the Prisons Act, P.S. City Faridkot, FIR No. 28 of 26.01.2023 under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. City Moga, FIR No. 7 dated 28.10.2022 under Section 153, 153-A, 212, 216, 120-B IPC, 25 of the Arms Act at P.S.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 22 SSOC Mohali, FIR No. 44 of 2025 under Section 308(5), 351 of BNS, P.S. Kot Ise Khan. His production warrants are issued in seven other FIRs. 23.

Embargo for release of regular bail is created under Section 43(d)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Section reads as under:- !

3 '

F F ( '

3 '

-+; 3

7 24.

The proviso to Section 43(5)(d) of UAP Act clearly states that if Courts are satisfied that the prima-facie allegations against the accuse are true after "perusal of case diary or report made under section 173 Cr.P.C." bail cannot be granted. In other words, after examining documents annexed to report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. if the Courts are satisfied that allegations against the accused are not true, bail under Section 43D(5) of UAP Act can be granted.

25.

Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403, elaborately dealt with what amounts to a prima-facie case. Paragraphs 24 to 35 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant which are reproduced herein for ready reference:- )

8;H 33

8;1 >.? 9( (

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 23

F 9(( ( 1

>.?

8;1

>.?

8;1

!" # $ % & % '&

& &

( )

( *+#+

% % %

& & '

, *+# +

&& %

- *+#+

) #

1I1

< '#

7 <

9(( ) /

7 9((

)

8;1 >.?<

8;+>-? 33 <

7 <

' /

# '

)

' '

9(( '

/ #

) #

3 /

$ &

% % & 0 1 2 / % & $ % &

&$ ' 3

>:J-H?. 33-, >:J-H? : 33 >3 ? ;K;@

,> 33 :8' :;? :;L

-HC+( 7

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 24 >

? '

7 > '

>C?

8;1 '

>.?'

3 3 0

8;1 >.? 9(( '

9((

, >-?%

M -- 2/ ' ' 7

FF 9(( B !

5 % %

!"#B >:? %

8;H33>

7?M 0 ' >

?' '

, :-%

M ::%

M :; %

M 6 )

(

)

7 )

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@ !

/ '

8;1 >.? 9( (

8;H33

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 25

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?:

33 >3 ? ;K;@

9( ( 0

:; :8:C :+' K1

, !

7& $,"

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33 >3 ? ;K;@' 33 :8' :;? 8

/ )' %& % &'

& %

% '

&, , &9 ,"

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?:

33>3 ?;K;@' 33 :K' :C? :CL

3 '

' #

' : : & & & &,

!" # : % &% '&

- % % & %

!" 7 * '

, "

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@' 33 :+' :8? :8 L /

< 1 <

)

7 *

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@' 33 :+'

:8?

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 26 ) 3 /

8;1 >.?,"

>:J-H? . 33 - , >:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@' 33 :+' :C? :C L

8;1 -HC+ ( '

F F -HC+ ( 7 .

7 % $; ,"

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@' 33 :K' :+? :+ L & % ' & & & &

& - % : % & ' ' 7 "

>:J-H? . 33 - , >:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@' 33 :K' :+? :+L) 3

7 (

, "

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@' 33

:8N:K' :;N:+? )

# $ # $ :J-8 33 0O ( -H: , >:J-8? : (O >3 ? :.-@ D 3 (

8;1

,> 330O (? )

' '

3 '

7, >-? %

( B

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 27 >:? %

B >;?%

B '

B >8?%

' 33 '

B >.? %

7 >

? %

& %

& >:J:;? C 33 .K , >:J:;? : 33 >3 ? C+C@ 16 >D*5 #"'66?

;H 8J

9( (

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?:

33 >3 ? ;K;@

, "%

& %

& >:J:;? C 33 .K , >:J:;? : 33 >3 ?C+C@' 33 C;' -;? %

F F 9((

) D

)( (' 303( !

(

7 9((

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33 >3 ?;K;@ &

- &

$ &

- 7L ! % ' ! % ' >:J:-?8 33+J8,>:J:-?: 33>3 ?8HC@ !

* * D ' 66

-+' -K :- 9( (

>:J-H?. 33-,>:J-H?: 33>3 ?;K;@> 33 :8'

:;?

, "! % ! % ' >:J:-?8 33+J8,>:J:-?: 33>3 ? 8HC@' 33 +JK' -:?

5 $ )'

% ' & &&

' ' % '

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 28

% & % &'

& %

26.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 held that Section 43D(5) per se does not oust the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts to grant bail on violation of Part III of the Constitution of India, but it further states that they have to be construed harmoniously. It has been observed as under:- !"

8;1 >.? 9((

5 %

8;1 >.? 9((

( 27.

In Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 15 SCC 56, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- !

% -HC+ ( '

-; ' -KCJ 3

)

/ )

"( !#

=9 "(!#

'>:J:-?; 33+-;@

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 29 (

' >:J:-? ; 33 +:;@' /

"(!#

=9 "(!#

'>:J:-?; 33+-;@' '

' '

8;1 >.?

' '

"( !#

=9 "( !#

' 6 ! "!2 % ,

&' %

% +

% ,

%& ': % , % ' ' - Q( % =!(Q(

% ' >:J-H? . 33 - , >:J-H? : 33 >3 ? ;K;@ # 6

)! =6

)!'>:JJ.?: 33-;, :JJ. 33>3 ?8K-@ '

6# =

6# ' -HCJ 33 0O 3 : , (* -HC: 3 :.;@ 5

(?=5

(?'>-H+K?- 33--K,-H+K 33>3 ? 8-@'

(

-8 :- 3

(

FF -HC+ ( '

)

-KCJ3 -HC+( 7>

? 28.

The observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs. State of Gujarat through National

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 30 Investigating Agency, 2025 SCC On Line SC 1103, are also relevant on the point regarding release of accused on bail in UAP Act. In paragraph-24, it has been observed as under:- )

>.? 9(( ' '

( :- 3

7 29.

Delhi High Court in Jagtar Singh Johal vs. NIA, 2024 SCC Online Del 89, observed that the bail under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA cannot be granted solely on the basis of long incarceration of the accused person and the same has to be viewed along with the gravity of offences which are supported by the relevant material provided by the NIA. The relevant portion of the same is as follows:- ".

(

)

(

9((

4* ' /

)

' 1

(

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 31 )

' '& ,

& &

& %

' '

>9((?'

>.? ( 7"

( 30.

The fact that accused conspired to commit the murder of one of the accused i.e. Shakti Singh involved in sacrilege case and were successful to perpetuate the crime of murder of another accused i.e. victim of this case with the connivance of other co-accused who were not in custody, the accused/appellants, if enlarged on bail, can indulge in many more offences of the similar nature especially when all the three accused-appellants have chequered criminal history. By committing the murder of a person who was accused in a criminal case, the present accused-appellants also interfered in the judicial process of determination of the guilt of the deceased. Deceased Pardeep Kumar @ Raju Dodhi being accused in a sacrilege case had a right to fair trial and due process of law.

By committing his murder, the State was deprived of its duty to prosecute against him. The Courts have the legitimate authority to determine the guilt and administer punishment. Accused by taking law in their own hands under the pretext that they were performing the religious task undermined the fundamental principle of rule of law. By committing his murder, deceased Pardeep Kumar alias Raju Dodhi was permanently removed from the judicial process.

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 32 criminal offence prevents the legal system to function which is direct challenge to the authority and power of the Court. Although in this case, only one witness out of total 105 witnesses is examined by the prosecution as of now but the trial can be expedited. The ground that examination of all the witnesses is likely to take time is no ground for release of accused on regular bail.

31.

In view of above discussion, we are inclined that accusedappellants are not entitled for release on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, all the three bail applications moved by above named three accused-appellants are dismissed.

32.

Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. 33.

Any observations made herein above while deciding these bail applications shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 34.

Since only one witness out of total 105 witnesses has been examined by the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to take the following steps for expeditious conclusion of the trial:-

! ! "

CRA-D-1396-2023, 1586-2023 and 695-2024 33 $ % &

A copy of this order be placed in the connected files. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE JUDGE 17.11.2025 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No