‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case

“‘Long Custody Cannot Override Section 43D(5)’ – Stringent UAPA Bar Reaffirmed”, Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a crucial ruling on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur held that where allegations are “prima facie true,” the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) operates with full force, leading to denial of bail.

The Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order rejecting bail, observing that material on record discloses involvement in a larger terror conspiracy linked to Babbar Khalsa International, and therefore, no ground for interference was made out.

Background of the Case

The case originates from FIR No. 2 dated 11.01.2023, registered at the State Special Operation Cell, SAS Nagar, invoking offences under Section 120-B IPC, Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, and Sections 17, 18 and 20 of UAPA.

The prosecution alleged a well-organized terror module connected with Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), with handlers operating from abroad, including Paramjit Singh @ Pamma in the United Kingdom. The network allegedly involved gangsters, financial conduits, and operatives tasked with executing targeted killings of specific community leaders.

The appellant, Jaspal Singh @ Honey, was alleged to have participated in reconnaissance and coordination for such targeted killings. Though no recovery was effected from him, the prosecution relied on disclosure statements and electronic evidence.

His regular bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 29.01.2024, which led to the present appeal before the High Court.

Legal Issues at Hand and Court’s Observations

The case raised significant questions concerning the scope of bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA, particularly whether the material on record satisfies the “prima facie true” standard, and whether prolonged custody of over three years could justify release.

The appellant argued false implication and emphasized long incarceration. The State countered by asserting that the accused was deeply embedded in a terror network involving arms supply, funding, and planned assassinations.

Relying on UOI v. Barakathullah (2024), the Court reiterated that once the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail must be declined, regardless of other considerations.

Details of the Judgment

The High Court placed strong reliance on electronic evidence and interconnection between co-accused, particularly noting:

“the same number is saved in the mobile phone of present appellant… which showed that… they [were] well connected with each other.”

This digital linkage, read with disclosure statements and the broader conspiracy, persuaded the Court that the threshold of “prima facie true” stood satisfied.

Rejecting the bail plea, the Court unequivocally held:

“There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the appellant, as such, he is not entitled to bail on merits.”

On the argument of prolonged custody, the Bench made a firm observation that has wider implications in UAPA jurisprudence:

“He is not entitled to bail even on the ground of custody.”

The Court emphasized that Section 43D(5) creates a strict statutory bar, which cannot be diluted merely because the accused has spent considerable time in custody.

The Bench also took into account the appellant’s criminal antecedents, observing that prior involvement in criminal cases strengthens the prosecution case and impacts risk assessment.

Further, the Court underscored the seriousness of allegations involving targeted killings, foreign handlers, and cross-border arms supply, observing that such offences demand a stringent approach to bail.

Ultimately, the Court concluded:

“The order of rejection of bail calls for no interference and the same is upheld.”

While dismissing the appeal, the Court balanced concerns of prolonged detention by directing that the trial be expedited, and clarified that its observations shall not influence the merits of the case.

This judgment stands as a strong reaffirmation of the restrictive bail framework under UAPA, particularly the dominance of the “prima facie true” test under Section 43D(5). The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that where credible material indicates involvement in terrorist conspiracy, neither long custody nor absence of recovery is sufficient to grant bail.

By prioritizing national security concerns, gravity of offence, and evidentiary connections, the Court has reinforced a consistent judicial stance that liberty must yield where statutory conditions under anti-terror laws are clearly attracted, subject only to the safeguard of a speedy trial.

Date of Decision: 16/03/2026