Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail to Baba Rampal's Son-in-Law After Main Accused Freed and All Material Witnesses Examined

The Division Bench cited over four years of incarceration, the bail granted to main accused Baba Rampal, and completion of examination of 49 material witnesses to set aside the trial court's refusal.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Deepak Manchanda, on 14 August 2026 set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, refusing regular bail to Sanjay @ Fauji — an ex-serviceman and son-in-law of Baba Rampal — in connection with the violence at Satlok Ashram, Barwala on 18 November 2014. The case carries charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) alongside a battery of IPC offences, the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Two factors proved decisive: Baba Rampal himself had been granted regular bail by the same court on 8 April 2026, and all 49 material witnesses identified in an earlier bench order had since been examined by the prosecution.

The 2014 Satlok Ashram Violence and the Appellant's Alleged Role

On 18 November 2014, police teams arrived at Satlok Ashram, Barwala, District Hisar, to execute warrants of arrest issued by the High Court against Baba Rampal. Inspector Anil Kumar, present roughly 400 metres from the Ashram, read the warrants over a loudspeaker and called for calm. The situation turned violent quickly. According to the FIR, Baba Rampal had positioned 600 to 700 women and children outside the Ashram gate, while 1,500 to 2,000 armed youths occupied the roof. Followers carried plastic cans filled with diesel or petrol and threatened to self-immolate or attack police if an arrest was attempted.

Stone-pelting began. The police party was fired upon and petrol bombs were thrown at officers. A JCB crane brought by the police was set ablaze. Police used tear gas and water cannons. When the violence subsided, 111 police personnel had been injured: eight sustained firearm injuries, one suffered burns, 17 received grievous injuries, and 85 sustained simple injuries. FIR No. 428 dated 18 November 2014 was registered at Police Station Barwala, Hisar.

Investigation revealed that Sanjay @ Fauji, an ex-serviceman and Baba Rampal's son-in-law, had allegedly trained members of what investigators described as Baba Rampal's “mini army” in the use of arms, lathis, and dandas. The weapons used in the attack were said to have been stored inside the Ashram under his close supervision. The charges against him span Sections 147, 148, 114, 149, 186, 120-B, 188, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 224, 225, 307, 326-A, 332, 333, 342, 353 and 435 IPC; Sections 25, 27, 30, 54 and 59 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959; Sections 16, 18, 20, 22-C and 23 of the UAPA; Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Prolonged Evasion and the Earlier Bail Refusal

Sanjay @ Fauji was not arrested at or near the time of the offence. The State placed on record that he absconded for approximately seven and a half years and was declared a proclaimed offender before finally being arrested on 16 July 2021. He was subsequently acquitted in the separate FIR filed against him for having been declared a proclaimed offender, but the State submitted that acquittal occurred on a technical ground — the FIR had been based on a police report rather than a complaint.

He approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, for regular bail, and that court declined his application on 15 April 2026. He then filed the criminal appeal before this court, which became CRA-D-663-2026. A prior bail appeal, CRA-D-1574-2024, had already been dismissed by the High Court on 17 November 2025. At that stage, the bench had noted that 49 material witnesses, including doctors and tehsildars, remained to be examined and that Sanjay's status as the son-in-law of Baba Rampal — who commands a large following in Haryana — created a risk of witness influence. The court declined bail but directed the State to produce all 49 material witnesses within four months from the next date of trial, and granted liberty to the appellant to renew the bail prayer thereafter.

Changed Circumstances Placed Before the Court

In the present appeal, Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, appearing for the appellant along with several other counsel, pressed a cluster of changed circumstances. Of the 942 accused named in FIR No. 428, 940 had been granted bail. Of the 148 accused facing UAPA charges, 146 were on bail. The main accused, Baba Rampal himself, had been granted regular bail by the High Court on 8 April 2026 — after the earlier refusal of the appellant's bail petition. All 49 material witnesses directed to be examined had since been examined. The total number of prosecution witnesses was 425, of whom only 65 had been examined in total, signalling that the trial remained far from conclusion.

The appellant had also been granted interim bail twice during his incarceration — once for one day to attend his mother's bhog ceremony, and once for one week on account of his daughter's marriage — and had not misused either concession. He had been acquitted in five other criminal cases in which he was implicated. His incarceration, as of 12 August 2026, stood at four years and 21 days.

The State, through Deputy Advocate General Shaveta Sanghi, opposed bail. She relied on a status report by affidavit of Mr. Sumit Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barwala, Hisar. The State maintained that Sanjay and Baba Rampal were the main accused in the FIR, that Sanjay had trained followers to operate weapons, and that he had fired upon and thrown petrol bombs at police during the events of 18 November 2014. She also pointed out that 14 accused persons had been declared proclaimed offenders and were yet to be arrested. She pressed the Section 43-D(5) UAPA bar, which prohibits release on bail where the court, on perusing the case diary or the Section 173 report, finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.

The UAPA Bail Standard and the Supreme Court's Position

The bench set out the text of Section 43-D of the UAPA in full. Section 43-D(5) provides that no person accused of an offence under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA shall be released on bail if the court, on perusing the case diary or the Section 173 report, finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true. Section 43-D(6) makes clear that these restrictions are in addition to existing restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law.

The bench then turned to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v National Investigation Agency, Jammu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512. That judgment held that the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is not merely a statutory slogan but a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court observed that while statutes may calibrate how that principle applies in national security cases, they cannot altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention. It held that the Section 43-D(5) embargo must operate as a circumscribed restriction, subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22, and that even under the UAPA, bail remains the rule. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the line of authority tracing back to Union of India v K.A. Najeeb, under which bail may be granted in UAPA cases on grounds of prolonged incarceration, gross delay in trial, and the absence of any realistic prospect of the trial concluding soon.

The Court's Reasoning

The Division Bench observed that all 49 material witnesses had been examined, satisfying the condition on which liberty to re-apply had been granted. With that condition met, the primary reason for refusing the earlier bail petition no longer held.

The bench also took note of the stark disparity in the treatment of co-accused. Of 942 accused, 940 were on bail. Of 148 facing UAPA charges, 146 were on bail. Baba Rampal, described as the main accused, had himself been enlarged on regular bail on 8 April 2026. The appellant was, on the court's account, the only accused in custody. His incarceration exceeded four years. The prosecution had examined 65 of its 425 witnesses, leaving 360 yet to be examined, with no near-term prospect of the trial concluding.

On the question of the proclaimed offender status, the SSP, Hisar appeared before the court via video conferencing and reported that a Special Investigation Team had been constituted and approximately 50 raids conducted to arrest the 14 remaining proclaimed offenders. The SSP acknowledged that these individuals were from different regions including Nepal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana, and had not yet been apprehended, though raids were continuing.

The court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, stating explicitly that the veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial on appreciation of evidence. Applying the Andrabi framework to the attending facts, the bench concluded the appellant deserved bail.

Order

The impugned order dated 15 April 2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar was set aside. The bench granted regular bail to Sanjay @ Fauji subject to the following conditions:

• He shall produce two local sureties of Rs. 5 lakh each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court or Duty Magistrate.
• He shall provide his complete and latest residential address and mobile number to the SHO concerned and shall keep his mobile location active at all times.
• He shall appear before the SHO of the police station where the FIR is registered on every first Monday of each month at 11:00 AM during the pendency of trial.

The trial court or Illaqa Magistrate was given liberty to impose additional conditions as it deems fit. The prosecution was permitted to approach the High Court to recall the bail order if the appellant violates any condition. The court clarified that nothing stated in the order amounts to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.