One Year Custody Not Prolonged In Cases Involving Attack On Police Post With Explosive Substance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail

"Given the attempt and intention of the appellant to create disturbances to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the appellant is not entitled for bail", Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the bail appeal of an accused who allegedly threw an explosive substance on a Police Post building in Amritsar in furtherance of a conspiracy, holding that custody of approximately one year cannot be stated to be prolonged in cases involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Explosive Substances Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur dismissed the appeal filed by Karandeep Singh alias Karan against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar which had rejected his regular bail application in the FIR registered under the Explosive Substances Act, UAPA, Arms Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Background of the Case

On 4th February 2025, an FIR was registered when an explosion took place near an old abandoned building of Police Post Fatehgarh Churian Road in Amritsar City. The investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by an explosive substance and not any natural incident. A forensic team along with dog squad was sent to the spot and forensic examination, evidence collection and videography were conducted.

On 8th February 2025, the appellant along with co-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Labha were identified as prime suspects on the basis of mobile tower dump analysis, CCTV camera recordings near the place of occurrence and different places of the city, and information from secret informers. They were arrested near village Mallunangal, District Amritsar during checking while riding a motorcycle.

Legal Issues

The Court examined whether the appellant was entitled to bail considering the nature of offences under UAPA and Explosive Substances Act, the evidence against him, and the period of custody.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The Court noted that during custodial interrogation, co-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Labha disclosed that he came into contact with co-accused Harpreet Singh alias Happy Pashian through Buta Singh alias Joban, and they were induced to throw a grenade on the building of the Police Post at Fatehgarh Churrian Road on payment of Rs. 7 lakh. The disclosure further revealed that on 3rd February 2025, the appellant along with Lovepreet Singh threw the explosive on the Police Post building, and the appellant received Rs. 50,000 from co-accused Harpreet Singh alias Happy Pashian for participating in the act.

"The petitioner and co-accused suffered separate disclosure statements disclosing therein that they had wrongly stated in their previous disclosure statements that they had thrown a grenade but in fact, they had thrown some explosive substance wrapped in a packet on the aforesaid building"

The Court observed that co-accused Amritpal Singh alias Amrit, Manager of Hotel PB02 INN, provided shelter to the accused before and after conducting the explosion at the Police Post building.

"They had kept concealed a sack containing weapons such as an AK-56 Rifle with magazine and cartridges, a country-made pistol 32 bore with magazine and cartridges and a Glock Pistol 30 bore with cartridges, by burying the same in a plot situated at Loharka road, Amritsar, which were provided to them by the co-accused Harpreet Singh alias Happy Pashian through the drone"

The Court noted that pursuant to disclosure statements, the Glock Pistol 30 bore with 4 cartridges was recovered at the instance of the appellant, which was taken into police possession vide Recovery Memo dated 9th February 2025. The AK-56 Rifle was recovered at the instance of co-accused Lovepreet Singh and a country-made pistol was recovered at the instance of co-accused Buta Singh.

The Court further noted that the appellant had criminal antecedents in another FIR registered under the Arms Act and BNS at Police Station Airport, Amritsar, arising from an incident where co-accused Lovepreet Singh snatched the service pistol of an ASI and fired towards the police party while the accused were being taken for investigation.

"The call details record and phone tower locations of the mobile phones recovered from the accused during their personal searches after their arrest corroborated the facts relating to their constant association, presence at the shop of co-accused, place of occurrence, and Hotel PB02 INN before and after the occurrence"

The State opposed bail on the ground that the intent of the appellant was to cause massive destruction to life and property and it was sheer luck that loss was not caused. The Court accepted this contention, noting that the attempt and intention of the appellant was to create disturbances to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

"Perusal of the above evidence point out towards implication. No case on merits is made out. Even the appellant's custody is around 01 year which cannot be stated to be prolonged and he is not entitled to bail even on custody"

The Court clarified that any observation made was neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the bail appeal, holding that no case on merits was made out for grant of bail and the custody period of approximately one year could not be considered prolonged given the nature of offences involving attack on a police establishment with explosive substances in furtherance of a conspiracy to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Date of Decision: 9th March, 2026