Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Bail Appeal of Alleged KLF Arms Supplier in Shaurya Chakra Awardee Murder Case

A Division Bench applied the twin-prong test under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA to deny bail to an accused who allegedly supplied weapons used in the killing of Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed the bail appeal of Gurwinder Singh @ Baba, an accused alleged to have supplied the weapons used to kill Shaurya Chakra Awardee Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu at his residence-cum-school in Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, on 16 October 2020. A Division Bench of Justice Archana Puri and Justice Ramesh Kumari, deciding the appeal on 27 May 2026, held that the material on record prima facie established the appellant's complicity in a terrorist conspiracy orchestrated by the Khalistan Liberation Force, and that the strict bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was fully attracted. The court also directed the trial court to endeavour for expeditious completion of proceedings, noting the appellant had been in custody for close to four years.

The Murder, the NIA Takeover, and the Appellant’s Alleged Role

FIR No. 714 dated 16 October 2020 was registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Two unidentified men had shot dead Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu, a Shaurya Chakra Awardee, at his residence-cum-school. Sections 16, 17, 18, 18-A, 18-B, 10, 20, 23, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA were subsequently added.

Investigation revealed that the murder was directed by Sukhmeet Pal Singh @ Sukh Bhikariwal (A-25), an operative of the Khalistan Liberation Force; Sunny Toronto (A-31), a Canada-based KLF operative; and Lakhveer Singh Rode (A-26), described in the chargesheet as the self-styled chief of the KLF and a declared individual terrorist. These three were identified as the main conspirators who provided logistics and financial support to the shooters.

The National Investigating Agency took over the case pursuant to Order No. 11011/08/2021 dated 25 January 2021, re-registering it as RC-01/2021/NIA/DLI on 26 January 2021. The first chargesheet was filed on 27 April 2021 against eight arrested accused. A third supplementary chargesheet was filed on 16 December 2021 against three persons, including Gurwinder Singh @ Baba, who was then listed as an absconder.

The NIA's case against the appellant is specific. He is alleged to be a close associate of Sukhmeet Pal Singh @ Sukh Bhikariwal and, acting on his directions, to have collected and delivered arms and ammunition at various locations in Punjab, smuggled narcotic substances, and collected cash. Critically, the weapons used in the murder — a .30 bore pistol and a 9mm pistol — are alleged to have passed through his hands.

According to the chargesheet, the .30 bore pistol delivered by Sunny Toronto to shooters Sukhdeep Singh @ Bura (A-18) and Gurjit Singh @ Bhaa (A-19) developed a fault. On Sukhmeet Pal Singh's direction, Gurwinder Singh @ Baba collected the weapon, got it repaired, and returned it. When the shooters again complained that the .30 bore weapon jammed during firing, Gurwinder Singh @ Baba delivered a 9mm pistol to A-18 and A-19 near Kathunangal Toll Plaza, Amritsar. Both weapons were seized from A-18 and A-19 by Special Cell Delhi Police in FIR No. 295 dated 7 December 2020, and ballistic comparison confirmed they were used in the killing.

Digital data retrieved from the mobile phone of Sukhmeet Pal Singh @ Sukh Bhikariwal showed Gurwinder Singh @ Baba to have been in constant contact with him. A voice sample of the appellant was compared with audio retrieved from that seized device, and the voices matched.

Gurwinder Singh @ Baba evaded arrest for close to two years after the third supplementary chargesheet was filed. A look-out circular was issued. He was formally arrested on 25 August 2022, after which the fourth supplementary chargesheet was filed on 2 January 2023. The Special Judge dismissed his regular bail application on 2 June 2025, prompting the present appeal.

The Legal Framework: Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and the Twin-Prong Test

The Division Bench began its legal analysis by setting out the bail provision under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which applies to offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. The proviso to that sub-section bars release on bail if the court, on perusal of the case diary or the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true.

The bench drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 826, which had articulated a twin-prong test for bail applications under Section 43-D(5). The first prong asks whether the prima facie test for rejection of bail is satisfied — that is, whether the accusations make out an offence under Chapter IV or VI on a perusal of the case diary and final report. The second prong, which arises only if the first is not satisfied, asks whether the accused deserves bail under the general tripod test: flight risk, witness tampering, and evidence tampering.

The bench quoted the Supreme Court's observation that the conventional principle — “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” — does not apply under the UAPA. The form of words in the proviso to Section 43-D(5) — “shall not be released” — contrasts with the permissive “may be released” in Section 437(1) CrPC, signalling a legislative intent to make bail the exception and jail the rule in UAPA cases.

The bench also referred to the eight-point propositions from NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019 (5) SCC 1, as summarised in the 2024 Gurwinder Singh judgment. These include: that the materials must show complicity on the face of it; that the court records a finding on broad probabilities, not proof beyond doubt; that the totality of material must be considered and not individual pieces in isolation; and that the admissibility of documents relied upon by the prosecution cannot be questioned at the bail stage. The bench also cited Kekhriesatuo Tep v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 (6) SCC 58, for the proposition that the degree of satisfaction required under the UAPA's “prima facie” standard is lower than the “not guilty” standard used in statutes such as TADA, MCOCA, and the NDPS Act.

How the Bench Applied the Test to Gurwinder Singh @ Baba

Applying the first prong of the twin-prong test, the bench found the prima facie threshold clearly met. The digital data from Sukhmeet Pal Singh's phone, the voice sample match, the ballistic comparison of the seized weapons with bullets recovered from the scene and the deceased's body, and the chargesheet's account of the appellant's role in collecting, repairing, and delivering the murder weapons — taken together as a whole — pointed to his involvement in the conspiracy.

The bench held that the material prima facie indicated the appellant's “inclination towards terrorism” and that he was “knowingly facilitating the commission of preparatory act, towards the commission of terrorist act under UAP Act.” Since the first prong was satisfied, the court did not need to proceed to the tripod test.

The appellant's counsel had argued that he was not named in the original FIR, that there was no incriminating evidence against him, and that his custody since 25 August 2022 — close to four years at the time of the appeal — combined with the slow pace of trial, constituted a ground for bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. Counsel pointed out that only 56 of 245 witnesses had been examined.

The bench rejected the Article 21 argument. It held that long custody alone is not a ground for bail when the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the evidence collected, and the severity of punishment on conviction are weighed. The court also noted the reasonable apprehension that the appellant would influence or threaten witnesses if released, given the nature of the case. His earlier conduct — remaining on the run for close to two years and evading the investigating agency despite efforts to secure his presence — reinforced the flight risk concern.

The bench further noted the custody certificate produced by the NIA, which disclosed five other FIRs registered against the appellant under various provisions of the IPC, the NDPS Act, the Explosives Act, and the UAPA. Production warrants in six other cases had also been sought against him. This record, the court held, made it impossible to treat the delay in trial as a standalone ground for bail.

On the pace of trial, the Special Prosecutor had submitted that an exclusive NIA court was expected to become operational shortly, which would put the trial on a fast track. The bench accepted this as a relevant factor and held that the ground of long detention could not, by itself, justify bail in a case of this gravity.

Direction to the Trial Court

While dismissing the appeal, the bench added a direction. It observed that even though the exclusive NIA court was expected to become operational soon, the trial court should, having regard to the extent of the appellant's custody, make an endeavour for expeditious culmination of the proceedings.

The bench was careful to clarify that all observations in the judgment were confined to the disposal of the bail appeal and were not to be construed as any expression on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed CRA-D-1084-2025 on 27 May 2026. The bail appeal filed by Gurwinder Singh @ Baba against the Special Judge's order dated 2 June 2025 was found to be without merit. The appellant remains in custody. The trial court was directed to endeavour for expeditious completion of the trial.