The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to Gurwinder Singh alias Baba, accused in the murder of Shaurya Chakra Awardee Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu. Sandhu was killed at his residence-cum-school in Bhikhiwind, Tarn Taran district, in an attack linked to terrorist activities.
Allegations of Supplying Weapons and Involvement in Terror Activities
According to the prosecution, Baba collected and delivered arms and ammunition at various locations in Punjab, and also engaged in smuggling narcotic substances and collecting cash. The weapons used in Sandhu's murder were allegedly provided by Baba to the main assailants. The court noted that the material on record indicates Baba's involvement in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by a banned terrorist organization.
“The material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities, backed up by banned terrorist organization. Precisely, on this account, there are serious allegations, where the safety and security of the country is being sought to be put on peril with there being, prima facie, material indicating involvement of the appellant,” the Division Bench of Justice Archana Puri and Justice Ramesh Kumari asserted.
Defense Arguments and Prosecution's Response
Baba's counsel contended that he was falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR, with no incriminating evidence against him. The trial was proceeding slowly, and he had been in custody since August 25, 2022. The counsel argued that long custody was a good ground for bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Special Prosecutor resisted, stating sufficient evidence was collected to prove his incriminating role, and that Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) applied, barring bail if accusations are prima facie true.
Court's Observations on UAPA Provisions
The court referred to the strict provisions of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, stating there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against Baba are prima facie true. The Bench added: “Considering the same and keeping in view the strict provisions as contained under Section 43-D (5) of UAP Act, there is reasonable ground for the Court, to believe and form an opinion that accusations against the appellant, are prima facie true.”
The court also clarified that prolonged incarceration alone does not justify bail. “When the appellant is in custody for a period of little less than four years, suffice to say merely because a person is in custody and that too for quite some time, would not be in itself a ground for coming to the conclusion that the trial has been delayed for a long period. The gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the evidence collected and the severity of punishment, in case of conviction, need to be taken note of,” the Bench added.
Delay in Trial and Fast-Track Court
The Bench noted that mere delay in trial for grave offences cannot be a ground for bail, especially since sanction for an exclusive NIA Court is to be operational soon, allowing the trial to be fast-tracked. “The ground of long detention, ipso facto, cannot be considered, to grant the bail,” the court stated.
In conclusion, the Bench observed: “Taking into consideration, all the circumstances, more particularly, when the material on record, prima facie, indicates the complexity of the appellant, as part of the conspiracy, since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of preparatory act, towards the commission of terrorist act under UAP Act, there arises no reason to grant bail to appellant-Gurwinder Singh alias Baba.”
