Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh Alias Kala Alias ... vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-D-124-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-124-2026 (O&M)
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON FULL
02.04.2026 23.04.2026 FULL 24.04.2026
PRONOUNCED
Parminder Singh alias Kala alias Parwinder Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate
For the appellant.
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section 228 10.11.2022 City Kotkapura 302, 307, 148, 149, 120B, 201, 473, 411, 212 IPC, Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and 16/18/20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act) 1967 Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court CNR No.PBFD01-001975-2023 CIS No.BA-532-2023 Date of Decision 14.06.2023
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faaridkot vide order dated 14.06.2023, the appellant had come before this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 943 days in filing the appeal, seeking bail in the FIR captioned above.
2. The facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 3rd March 2026 filed by DySP Sub Division Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Punjab.
ANJU RANI 2026.04.24 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-124-2026 (O&M) 2
3. On 10th November 2022, Simran wife of one Hardeep Singh Kataria @ Raju Dodhi, Dera Premi met the police party and gave her statement, based on which, the police had registered the FIR captioned above. The investigation commenced and it transpired that one Jatinder Singh @ Jitu had committed the murder of Dera follower and after that he along with his accomplices fled from the spot on two motorcycles leaving one motorcycle behind. During interrogation, one accused Parminder Singh stated that on instructions of Goldy Brar he had transported weapons on several occasions. Further appellant disclosed that he picked up the assailants and drop them, also kept concealed weapon with him, which were used in crime and also follow the instructions of Goldy Brar and received Rs.40,000/- in lieu of his role.
4. The counsel for the appellant seeks bail on the ground that there is no evidence against the appellant and the entire evidence is based on disclosure statement
5. The counsel for the State opposes the bail and submits that there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged murder and his links with Goldy Brar @ Satinder Singh and further that there are multiple FIRs against the appellant and in case he is granted bail he is at a serious flight risk and it would be impossible to arrest him again. He further stated that appellant stated that Goldy Brar would guide him telephonically and to indulge in crime and on behalf of his gang.
6. An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome.
7. It should be appropriate to refer to Paragraph 14 of the reply which tells about criminal history and reads as follows:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Section Police Station 1 224 27.11.2017 323, 341, 148, 506, 34 IPC Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur 2 232 31.12.2018 353, 186, 136 IPC Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur 3 44 16.03.2021 457, 380 IPC Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur 4 20 17.01.2022 279, 353, 186 IPC and Amargarh, District 61/78 of Punjab Excise Act Malerkotla 5 71 15.03.2022 307, 160, 148, 149, 188 Sadar Dhuri, District IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Sangrur Act 6 188 20.12.2022 25/54/59 of Arms Act and City Malerkotla-2, 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act District Malerkotla 7 18 29.01.2023 4/5 of Explosive Substance Dharmkot, District Act and 25 of Arms Act Moga 8 04 12.02.2023 25 of Arms Act SSOC Mohali 9 350 02.10.2023 21A of NDPS Act City Faridkot 10 427 04.12.2023 21/61/85 of NDPS Act City Faridkot ANJU RANI 2026.04.24 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-124-2026 (O&M) 3
8. The present case refers to the involvement of gangsters and their usage of the other criminals including the appellant. There are phone numbers which somehow connect the appellant with the crime. Considering the serious nature of offence and the murder of one Dera Premi which point out towards divide and caste politics between different gangs and the hostility of some gangs towards the people belonging to said Dera, it is not a case for grant of bail. Further the appellant's custody as per custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 is of 03 years 03 months & nine 09, which cannot be said to be excessive, as such he is not entitled for suspension even on custody. Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances the appellant fails to make out a case for bail.
9. 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 2026.04.24 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-124-2026 (O&M) 4 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.
10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
11. A perusal of the impugned order does not point out towards any illegality or perversity and calls for no interference. However in the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court requests the trial court to expedite the trial.
12. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 23.04.2026 Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO ANJU RANI 2026.04.24 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh