Plotting Murder Inside Court Premises Qualifies as Terrorist Act, Punjab and Haryana HC Denies Bail Under UAPA

The Division Bench held that a conspiracy to kill a gangster within court precincts, aided by a designated terrorist's money and logistics, prima facie satisfies the UAPA's definition of a terrorist act, and declined to extend bail on grounds of prolonged custody alone.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji, on 10 July 2026 dismissed the bail appeal of Parwinder Singh @ Pindu, who had been refused bail by the Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh by order dated 16 July 2024. Parwinder Singh stands accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) along with provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bench held that a conspiracy, hatched with a designated terrorist, to murder a person inside court premises is an act that prima facie intends to strike terror in the public mind. The case turns on whether prolonged custody alone can override the strict bail bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA when specific incriminating material linking the accused to a designated terrorist is present on record.

The FIR and Arrests

FIR No. 29 was initially registered on 26 February 2024 at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh, under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 419, 471, 201 and 120-B of the IPC, and Sections 17, 18, 18-B and 20 of the UAPA.

The trigger was the apprehension of two individuals—Sunny @ Sachin @ Maddy Manchanda and Umang—near the Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh, at around 11:45 pm on 25 February 2024. They were riding a white Activa without helmets. A pistol and live cartridges were found on Sunny; three live cartridges marked “KF 7.65” were recovered from Umang.

On the basis of disclosures by Sunny and Umang, several others were arrested. Parwinder Singh @ Pindu was arrested on 28 February 2024 from TDI City, Sector-111, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A Verna car bearing registration No. CH01-BP-6918 and two mobile phones—an Apple phone and a OnePlus phone—were recovered from him and taken into police custody.

Co-accused Anmolpreet Singh was arrested the same day from the same locality upon Sunny's identification. Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma was arrested on 29 February 2024 near Counter No. 30, Sector-43 Bus Stand. A pistol, live cartridges and mobile phone fragments were subsequently recovered at her instance from a jungle behind ISBT-43, Chandigarh. One Baljeet Singh was also apprehended from SAS Nagar, Mohali, upon identification by Maya.

The Prosecution's Case Against the Appellant

According to the prosecution, Sunny, Umang and Maya had conducted a reconnaissance of the court premises at District Courts in Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula on 12 February 2024. The stated objective was to kill gangster Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he appeared for a court hearing. Sunny communicated with designated terrorists Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through Signal App on his phone.

The specific allegations against Parwinder Singh are that his two mobile phones were used to communicate with Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through Facebook Messenger, and that he acted on their instructions. On 9 February 2024, he went to Chandigarh railway station, collected Sunny and Umang, brought them to his flat at TDI City, SAS Nagar, Mohali in his Verna car, and thereafter shifted them to Anmolpreet's flat.

On the money trail: a sum of Rs. 49,900 was deposited into the SBI account of Parwinder Singh by Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan on 12 February 2024, which he then handed over to Sunny and Umang. On 14 February 2024, a further Rs. 16,000 was transferred to his account and similarly passed on. Bank statements from SBI Account No. 00000055148152719 placed before the court confirmed these transactions.

The analysis by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) of six mobile phones recovered from the appellant and co-accused revealed a video on Parwinder Singh's phone capturing an audio conversation on another mobile phone. The CFSL matched the voice in that conversation with a YouTube interview of Goldy Brar, identifying it as a conversation between Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan recorded on 3 February 2024 and downloaded onto the appellant's phone. Goldy Brar, Rohit Godara and Vicky Chauhan were declared proclaimed offenders by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh by order dated 30 April 2025 and have not yet been arrested.

The Appellant's Arguments

Counsel for Parwinder Singh argued that aside from the recovery of two mobile phones, no other incriminating material was recovered from him. There was, he submitted, no legally admissible material linking the appellant to any “designated terrorist” sufficient to bring him within the UAPA's ambit.

The appellant's case was characterised, at its highest, as one of harbouring two gang members. Under Section 19 of the UAPA, the punishment for harbouring a purported terrorist ranges from three years to life imprisonment. With the appellant having been in custody for over two years at the time of the appeal, counsel argued that prolonged custody by itself should entitle him to bail.

Counsel placed reliance on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, for the proposition that the essential ingredients constituting a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA were not made out. He also cited a line of Supreme Court decisions—including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713; Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498; Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885; Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755; and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693—for the principle that long incarceration can entitle an accused under the UAPA to bail through Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Lapita Banerji, writing for the Division Bench, opened the analysis by setting out Section 43-D of the UAPA in full. Section 43-D(5) prohibits release on bail of any person accused of an offence under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA unless the Public Prosecutor has been heard and, crucially, unless the court is satisfied on a perusal of the case diary or Section 173 report that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. Section 43-D(6) makes these restrictions cumulative with those under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bench then turned to the definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA, reproducing it in full. Section 15 captures acts done with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India, or with intent to strike terror in any section of the people, including by using firearms or other lethal weapons to cause death or injury to any person.

The bench's central reasoning was that the locale chosen for the planned murder was not incidental. It found that a conspiracy hatched with a designated terrorist to murder a person—even a gangster—within the precincts of a court, which is considered the “Temple of Justice,” would inevitably create or intend to create terror in the minds of people. The bench observed: if a person is not secure inside court premises, ordinary citizens at large would be naturally shocked and terrorised. The choice of location was therefore treated as integral to the terror intent.

On the material linking the appellant to that conspiracy, the bench found it substantial at the prima facie stage: bank records showing two tranches of money from Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan deposited into the appellant's SBI account; ATM transaction records showing the appellant withdrawing three amounts of Rs. 15,000 each on 12 February 2024 and handing the money to Umang within the ATM booth; the CFSL-verified audio capturing a conversation between Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan downloaded onto the appellant's phone; and CCTV footage and a tax invoice from Elante Mall, Chandigarh showing the purchase of an advocate's uniform in Umang's name on 12 February 2024—the same day as the court premises reconnaissance.

The bench acknowledged the line of Supreme Court authority cited by the appellant. It accepted that Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty including the right to a speedy trial, can entitle an accused under the UAPA to bail on the ground of prolonged custody. However, the bench drew a distinction: those precedents apply where the State cannot attribute any specific role to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution had presented, through the comprehensive affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh, specific and documented material connecting Parwinder Singh to the conspiracy and to Goldy Brar as a designated terrorist. The court therefore concluded that this was not a case where prolonged custody alone could tip the balance.

The bench was also clear that its observations were confined strictly to the bail stage and would not be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the trial.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed CRA-D-1020 of 2024. Parwinder Singh @ Pindu's appeal against the Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh's order dated 16 July 2024 refusing bail was rejected. The appellant remains in custody. The court clarified that nothing in the order shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case at trial.