UAPA: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail To Anmolpreet Singh, Finds No Prima Facie Link To Goldy Brar Gang
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a UAPA accused, citing lack of prima facie evidence linking him to Goldy Brar's alleged terrorist network and prolonged incarceration
Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to Anmolpreet Singh, booked under UAPA, holding that no material evidence prima facie tied him to Goldy Brar's gang after 2.5 years in custody.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 17 granted regular bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly harbouring members of designated terrorist Goldy Brar's gang, holding that prima facie no incriminating material or link evidence had been placed on record to connect him with the alleged terrorist activities.
A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji allowed the appeal filed by Anmolpreet Singh, setting aside the Special NIA Court's July 16, 2024 order refusing him bail.
The appellant was booked in an FIR initially registered under the Arms Act; however, subsequently, the provisions of the UAPA were invoked. The prosecution alleged that he had provided shelter and financial assistance to members of Goldy Brar's gang.
However, after examining the material placed before it, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any prima facie nexus between the appellant and the commission of a terrorist offence.
The Bench observed that prima facie no incriminating material had been found against the appellant, adding that no link evidence had been established connecting him with the commission of any crime, much less an offence under the UAPA.
The Court further noted that no mobile phone or other incriminating material had been recovered from the appellant to establish any connection with designated terrorist Goldy Brar. It also found no material showing who deposited the alleged money, at whose instance it was withdrawn, or to whom it was ultimately paid.
Rejecting the prosecution's reliance on photographs allegedly showing the appellant with co-accused persons, the Bench observed that merely because the appellant appeared in certain photographs with the co-accused could not lead to the conclusion that he intended to commit a terrorist act.
It also recorded that apart from disclosure statements, prima facie no evidence had been collected against him.
The Court reiterated that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees not only personal liberty but also the right to a speedy trial.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the Bench observed that long incarceration by itself can justify grant of bail in appropriate UAPA cases where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
Relying on K.A. Najeeb, the Court noted that statutory restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA do not oust the constitutional courts' power to grant bail where continued detention results in violation of Article 21.
The Division Bench also emphasised that the Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself.
In the present case, the Court found that the appellant had remained in custody for almost two-and-a-half years, while only one out of 56 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The State was also unable to indicate when the trial was likely to conclude.
Holding that the end of the trial was not in sight, the Bench concluded that it was left with no other option but to release the appellant on regular bail, subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, surrendering his passport, appearing before the trial court and investigating officer as directed.
He has further been directed to refrain from influencing witnesses and to report to the local SHO on alternate Mondays until conclusion of trial and to not engage in any criminal activity.
Any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail, the Court said.
On July 10, the same bench had denied bail to a man accused of harbouring and providing financial assistance to members of gangster Goldy Brar’s network, who allegedly planned to murder a rival gangster during a court appearance.
Case title: Anmolpreet Singh v U.T. Chandigarh
Bench: Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji
Order Date: July 17, 2026
Next Story