High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRA-D/1236/2025allowed

Baljit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2026-03-16Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill,Ms. Justice Ramesh Kumari10 pages

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 1

CRA-D-1236-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-16.03.2026 Baljit Kaur ... Appellant versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI.

Present:- Mr. G.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Siddharth Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab with SI Nishan Singh.

***** RAMESH KUMARI, J.

CM No. 36926 of 2025 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CRA-D-1236 of 2025

1. Appellant-Baljit Kaur assails the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by appellant seeking regular bail in respect of a case arising out of FIR No. 8 dated 17.02.2025 under Sections 109, 324(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023 and Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Sections 13,16,17, 18, 18(B) and 20 of the Unlawful Activity of Prevention Act, (for short 'UAPA'), registered at Police Station Kotli Surat, Malhi.

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 2 2.

The translated gist of the FIR recorded on the statement of Sub Inspector Jagjit Singh, reads as under:-

"# $

# % !

" % ' $ %

( )*+,-,./01 *,2

34!56 738 )

$ %

! % 9 &' ( :; % (<6 !''= '>

3. Short reply by way of affidavit of Shri Joga Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dera Baba Nanak, Police District Batala has been filed by learned State counsel today in Court, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is nowhere named in the FIR and is sought to be nominated on the basis of a string of disclosure statements. It has further been submitted that, in any case, during the course of investigation, nothing incriminatory was recovered from her possession.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient evidence has been collected to show the complicity of the appellant. Learned State counsel pointed out that the appellant is the mother of co-accused Ravinder Singh. Co-accused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti are associates of co-accused Ravinder Singh. The appellant knew co-accused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti as they visited the house of co-accused Ravinder Singh son of the appellant in connection with a criminal conspiracy. The

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 3 criminal conspiracy was discussed in the house of the appellant and her residence served as a meeting point and safe shelter for hatching a conspiracy where a plan of throwing grenade at the house of Pappu Jaintipuria was discussed and finalized.

We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7.

The entire case against the appellant is based on disclosure statement of co-accused Mohit son of Jaspal, who in his disclosure statement stated that:- 6 2'

'+ +2

% $ &# %

$ $ ' &# % ? $

#% 0 ! '6

&# %

! : @ #% : ' $ %

$ &# %

% &' +

( &'+2

( ' #

' %

'> He further disclosed that he was called by co-accused Ravinder Singh at his house where his brother, sister and mother were already present. In their presence, he planned to execute the plan of throwing grenade attack. He further stated that the family of Ravinder Singh was aware about the conspiracy and the plan. On 15.01.2025, co-accused Ravinder Singh and Vishal Bhatti went on the motor cycle which was driven by Ravinder Singh and threw a grenade at the house of Pappu Jaintipuria which exploded. Thereafter, co-accused Ravinder Singh went abroad without informing him.

8. Appellant Baljit Kaur along with co-accused Vishal Bhatti and Ravinder Singh were nominated in the present FIR on the basis of said disclosure

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 4 statement of co-accused Mohit son of Jaspal vide DDR No. 13 dated 28.02.2025.

During investigation, co-accused Vishal Bhatti was arrested and his disclosure statement was also recorded. He also stated that co-accused Ravinder Singh introduced him to co-accused Mohit. On 14.01.2025, co-accused Vishal Bhatti visited the house of Ravinder Singh where Mohit, Rajbir Singh alias Raja were already present there. Ravinder Singh informed him that he had received a call from Happy Passian, who told him that a bomb had to be thrown at the house of Pappu Jaintipuria and in return they would receive a sum of Rs. 50000/- each. At that time, his mother Baljit Kaur (appellant), his sister and brother-in-law were present in the house. On 15.01.2025, he remained in the house of Ravinder Singh. The house of Pappu Jaintipuria was identified by co-accused Ravinder Singh and Rajbir Singh. When they reached the house of Pappu Jaintipuria in village Jaintipur, Ravinder Singh threw the hand grenade, which caused a very powerful explosion. After the incident, co-accused Ravinder Singh went abroad. 10.

Thus, allegation against the appellant is that she being the mother of co-accused Ravinder Singh had prior knowledge of the criminal conspiracy and she provided shelter for execution of the terrorist acts as disclosed by coaccused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti in their disclosure statements. 11.

We have also gone through Sub Section 5 of Section 43-D of UAPA which creates an embargo on grant of bail. This Sub Section reads as under:- ,*A' #

8 'B CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC'' -2.0 % %

7 7 $

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 5 $ $

$ ! $

$ %

!# $ $ $

$ # %

CCCC>' 12.

Offences punishable under Section 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B and 20 of UAPA have been alleged against the appellant.

Section 13 of UAPA reads as under:- !

# 'B - . E # B -. -$. # $ #

# $

$ $

' -+.E #

$ $

$ #

$ -*. $

$ ' -*. 0 % %

$ $

'> The term unlawful activity has been defined in Section 2(o), which reads thus:

'BCCCCCCCCCCC -.

#> #

$ # -

$ % $

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 6

$% $#$

.B -.

$ % $ %

!% D ++ 8 0'* D*+ +,

G # % # $ % $ H -. @

# % %

H -.

HCCCC''> Sections 16, 17, 18 and 18B of UAPA read thus:

- . E # -.

$ $

H -$.

$ # $ "

$ $

% % #

$ $ $ % $ % % $ # %

$ # $ "

$ $

' 3" 'B9

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 7 -. %% % %

H -$. %

% % # %

% %% % % @

H -. % %# %

# % % %

2 $

E # # $ # *I % J

$ # $ "

$ $

E # $ $

$ # $ "

$ $

'> 13.

The allegation against the appellant Baljit Kaur is that a conspiracy to throw a grenade on the house of Pappu Jaintipuria in village Jaintipur was planned in her house in her presence. There is no evidence to show that appellant was ever in touch with any of the co-accused. There is nothing on record which shows that appellant Baljit Kaur had taken any part or committed unlawful activities as defined in UAPA. There are no allegations against her that she advocated, abetted, or incited commission of any unlawful activities. Even if assuming that co-accused threw a grenade on the house of Pappu Jainatpuria

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 8 and conspiracy to indulge in that activity was hatched in her house, there is nothing on record that she was party to that conspiracy. 14.

Section 20 of UAPA, stipulates punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organization. This Section reads thus:

$ % % % ## $

$ $

'> Terrorist gang has been defined in Section 2(L), which reads thus:

'BCCCCCCCCCCCCCC' 5 % %>

## H CCCC'> 15.There are no allegations on record that the appellant was a member of any terrorist gang. As regards the second part of being a member of a terrorist organisation, as per Section 2(m), a terrorist organisation means an organisation listed in the first schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed. The reply submitted by the learned State counsel does not mention the name of the terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the appellant was a member. 16.

Appellant is a lady aged about 47 years and is a house wife, has no criminal antecedents and clean record and happens to be the mother of co-accused Ravinder Singh, who is absconding. Apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the offences in question against co-accused.

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 9 17.

The custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel reflects that the appellant was arrested on 03.03.2025 and since then she is in custody and has spent more than one year in custody. Challan against her as well as co-accused has already been presented in the trial Court on 25.08.2025 and charges have been framed on 03.12.2025 and presently the case is posted for prosecution evidence on 23.03.2026.

18.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the veracity and evidentiary value of the disclosure statements of co-accused Mohit and Vishal Bhatti against the appellant, yet to be tested during trial. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is a fit case for grant of concession of regular bail to the appellant Baljit Kaur. 19.

In view of above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the instant appeal, as such, is accepted. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. 20.

Needless to observe that the observations recorded hereinabove are only for the determination of appeal seeking bail. The reasons are confined to the case of the appellant pertaining to bail and same shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial pending before the trial Court. 21.

Since the trial is pending for reco

CRAD-1236-2025 (O&M) 10 !

! ! "

$ % &

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE JUDGE 16.03.2026 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No