Punjab-Haryana High Court
Azadbir Singh @ Azad vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-D-30-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-30-2026 (O&M)
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON FULL
02.04.2026 22.04.2026 FULL 23.04.2026
PRONOUNCED
Azadbir Singh @ Azad ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate (Legal aid counsel)
for the appellant.
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section
47 08.05.2023 E-Division, 9B of Explosive Act 1884, 3/4/5 of
Amritsar Explosive Substance Act 1908,
Sections 13, 16, 18 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and
120-B IPC
Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court CNR No.PBAS010097262025 Date of Decision 03.06.2025
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 03.06.2025, the appellant had come before this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 along with application for condonation of delay of 189 days in filing the appeal, seeking bail in the FIR captioned above.
2. The facts of the case are being taken from reply rated 10th March 2026 filed by Assistant Commissioner of police, Central Amritsar.
ANJU RANI 2026.04.23 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-30-2026 (O&M) 2
3. On 11th May 2023 some explosions were caused in the periphery of Shri Harmandar Sahib Gurudwara. Explicitly the explosions were caused on the rooftop of Saragadi parking towards Heritage Street on the night of 6th may 2023 at about 11:15 PM and on 8th may 2023 at about 6:00 AM and third bomb explosion was caused in the intervening night of 10th and 11th of May 2023 at 12:15 night in the vacant place or park outside Sri Guru Ramdas Sarai.
4. The appellant's counsel argues that initially the case was under Explosives Act and not under UAPA Act and appellant was not named.
5. Counsel for the State submits that the appellant was named after sufficient evidence and simply because FIR did not mention his name, would not mean or imply that he was falsely implicated. On an analysis of the facts which are relevant, three blasts were caused on intervals and none was named because at that time police was unaware, as such this is not a ground for bail.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence against the appelant is disclosure statement which is not admissible in evidence, whereas counsel for the State submits that the evidence is not disclosure but receipt of money, payment for supplying the Bombs and further supervising all the actions and appellant is not entitled for bail on this ground.
7. To analyse the above argument it would be relevant to refer to paragraph number 25 of the reply dated 10th March 2026 which leads as follows:-
"Role of the appellant and evidence against him. That the deponent humbly submits that the role of the present Appellant-Accused Azadbir Singh @Azad in commission of crime and the incriminating evidence available against him is enumerated as under:
a) Prime Mover and Conspirator:
➤ The appellant-accused Azadbir Singh @ Azad is not a peripheral participant but the main architect of the conspiracy. ➤ As per his disclosure statement, he received a call from one Abdul Khalid from Pakistan, who allegedly offered monetary inducement to commit bomb explosions near religious places to create terror in the Government and the public. Acting upon this, he: Recruited co-accused Amrik Singh @ Mikka. Involved Dharminder Singh @ Mitha and Harjit Singh for bomb-making assistance. Arranged procurement of explosive material through Sahib Singh. ➤ This clearly establishes premeditated conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC. Sections 3, 4, 5 Explosive Substances Act, and 16, 18 UAPA.
b) Procurement of Explosive Material ANJU RANI 2026.04.23 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-30-2026 (O&M) 3 ➤ On 05.05.2023, accused Sahib Singh supplied approximately 2.5 kilograms of explosive material for ₹20,000 at backside of Teja Singh Samundari Hall.
The present Appellant-accused Azadbir Singh was present and participated in the transaction.
c) Manufacture of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) ➤ The present Appellant-Accused Azadbir Singh purchased two Whole Energy drink cans and a tiffin box for assembling bombs. ➤ Received training from co-accused Dharminder Singh and Harjit Singh. ➤ Assembled bombs in Room No. 225, Sri Guru Ramdas Sarai. ➤ Stored remaining explosive material in his bag and deposited it in the cloak room (Token No. 684 recovered from him).
➤ This establishes direct physical involvement in bomb assembly.
d) Execution of Terror Acts: Commission of Multiple Explosions ➤ As per disclosure and investigation:
➤ Explosion on 06/07.05.2023 at Saragarhi Parking rooftop. ➤ Explosion on 08.05.2023.
➤ Explosion on intervening night of 10/11.05.2023 outside Sri Guru Ramdas Sarai.
➤ The blasts created panic and terror in public:
➤ The acts fall squarely under the offences of Explosive Substances Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act etc.
e) Recovery of Incriminating Material:
➤ Recovery from Personal Search from Azadbir Singh:
➤ Handwritten document claiming responsibility for explosion dated 07.05.2023.
➤ Reference to "Baba Mallha Sekhon group, Amritsar".
➤ "Khalistan Zindabad" slogan.
➤ Cloak room Token No.684 ➤Mobile phone (Realme).
➤ Aadhaar Card.
8. A perusal of the above clearly points out that there is sufficient evidence connecting the appellant with the three explosions which had been caused on one of the holiest shrines ANJU RANI 2026.04.23 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-30-2026 (O&M) 4 of six and the bomb blasts were caused on 3 different dates, certainly with an underlying objective of causing terror and fear amongst the devotees and the communities.
9. Considering the serious nature of offence and the prima facie evidence which is sufficient to indicate the appellant's involvement, it is not a case for bail.
10. On custody, appellant's custody is 02 years, 10 months & 10 days as per the custody certificate dated 01.04.2026 and under no stretch of imagination it can be said to be prolonged, as such appellant is also not entitled for bail on custody.
11. In UOI Rep. by Insp. of NIA v. Barakathullah, [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011; 2024 INSC 452, May 22, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division having received a credible information that the office bearers, members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization have been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu, by establishing State Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai and also offices in various districts of Tamil Nadu and that through their frontal Organizations like Campus Front of India, National Women's Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology, and that the frontal organizations and PFI were involved in the recruitment of members to various prescribed terrorist organizations, passed an order on 16th September 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NIA Act'), directing the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of the said case. In view of the said order, an FIR being RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for the offences under Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "UAPA").
[22]. In the instant case, we are satisfied from the chargesheet as also the other material/documents relied upon by the appellant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, previous criminal history of the respondents as mentioned in the charge-sheet, the period of custody undergone by the respondents being hardly one and half years, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material collected during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. We are conscious of the legal position that we should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted ANJU RANI 2026.04.23 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-30-2026 (O&M) 5 by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.
12. Given above, no ground is made out to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 03.06.2025 and the same is upheld. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
13. Appeal dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 22.04.2026 Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO ANJU RANI 2026.04.23 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh