Court Cites Prima Facie Evidence of Involvement in Terrorist Activities, Denies Bail Despite Prolonged Custody
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to Parwinder Singh alias Pindu, accused of involvement in unlawful activities under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Division Bench, comprising Justices Deepak Sibal and Lapita Banerji, dismissed the appeal against the order of the Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh, which had earlier refused bail to the accused.
Parwinder Singh, accused of aiding and abetting designated terrorists, was arrested in connection with a conspiracy to create terror within court premises. The court found prima facie evidence linking him to the conspiracy and acts of terror, which included financial transactions and mobile data analysis connecting him to known terrorists Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan.
The court's decision was grounded in Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts the grant of bail if there is reasonable ground to believe that the accusations are prima facie true. The court also considered the prolonged custody of the accused, acknowledging concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution of India regarding the right to life and liberty. However, it emphasized that mere prolonged detention does not automatically entitle the accused to bail under the stringent provisions of the UAPA.
The prosecution's case was bolstered by evidence of financial transactions involving the accused's bank account, mobile phone data linking him to conversations with designated terrorists, and his role in harboring and aiding co-accused involved in a planned attack on a gangster within court premises.
The court underscored that acts of terror within court premises aim to create fear and disrupt the sense of security, thus constituting a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA. The ruling emphasized that the intent to strike terror in the minds of the people was evident from the accused's alleged actions.
The judgment has highlighted the judiciary's role in balancing individual liberty against national security concerns, particularly under laws like UAPA where the threshold for granting bail is significantly higher.
Bottom line:-
Bail application under UAPA - Appellant accused of aiding designated terrorists and creating an atmosphere of terror in court premises - Court denies bail based on prima facie evidence connecting the appellant to the conspiracy and acts of terror.
Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 15, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 43D; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 201, 419, 471, 120B; Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25, 54, 59.
Parwinder Singh @ Pindu v. U.T. Chandigarh, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940338
