Less than six years after Shaurya Chakra Awardee Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu was killed at his residence-cum-school in Bhikhiwind in Tarn Taran district, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to Gurwinder Singh alias Baba.
It was alleged that Baba had collected and delivered not only arms and ammunition at various locations in Punjab, but also indulged in smuggling narcotic substances and collection of cash. The weapons used for killing Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu were made available by Baba to the main assailants, it was further alleged.
“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 Bench asserted.
Alleging false implication, his counsel contended Baba was not named in the FIR. There was no incriminating evidence against him to substantiate the version put forth by the investigating agency. The trial was going on at snail’s pace and he was in custody since August 25, 2022. “Long custody, in such circumstances, was a good ground for grant of bail, while invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the counsel contended.
The Special Prosecutor, on the other hand, resisted the claim for bail. He submitted sufficient evidence was collected during the investigation to prove his incriminating role. “The provisions of Section 43-D of UAP Act are completely applicable to this case and, therefore, bail has very rightly been denied to the appellant,” the Special Prosecutor submitted.
The courts, as per the provision, are barred from granting bail if they believe that the accusations are prima facie true based solely on the documents. Taking up the matter, the Division Bench of Justice Archana Puri and Justice Ramesh Kumari referred to the case details while observing the “material” before the court pointed “finger to the inclination of the appellant towards terrorism”.
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 Bench also made it clear that prolonged incarceration by itself could 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.
Before parting with the case, the Bench added mere delay in the trial pertaining to grave offences—similar to the one involved in the present case—could not be used as a ground to grant bail “more particularly, when it is coming forth of the sanction of exclusive NIA Court, to be made operational soon, on which basis, the trial will be put on fast track. The ground of long detention, ipso facto, cannot be considered, to grant the bail”.
“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,” the Bench added.
