Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case

“Confessional Statement of Co-Accused Alone Cannot Sustain Custody—Mens Rea and Direct Role Absent”, In a significant order protecting the right to personal liberty amid extended pre-trial incarceration, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the criminal appeal for regular bail filed by Manish Kumar @ Lucky, an accused in a high-profile murder case linked to alleged terrorist activities under UAPA and Section 302 IPC, among other serious charges.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari ruled that merely providing a SIM card to a third party, without any evidence of knowledge or intent of its criminal use, does not by itself establish criminal liability, especially in the absence of any direct involvement in the planning or execution of the crime.

The Court observed that “there is nothing on record that the accused-appellant had knowledge that the SIM was obtained by him… and shall be used to give telephonic call to deceased Rattandeep Singh.” Accordingly, the rejection of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, dated 02.05.2025, was set aside.

“Confessional Statements of Co-Accused Are Not Substantive Evidence for Prolonged Incarceration”

The prosecution’s case revolved around the murder of Rattandeep Singh, who was gunned down on April 3, 2024, by two motorcycle-borne assailants. During the investigation, it was found that a mobile SIM card used by the shooters was originally issued in the name of Sat Parkash, who allegedly stated during interrogation that he had provided the SIM to the present appellant, Manish Kumar @ Lucky, who in turn handed it over to co-accused Narinder Singh @ Sipu.

However, the High Court noted that the chain of custody of the SIM was extensive and indirect, passing through multiple individuals before reaching the actual assailants, and no evidence was led to demonstrate that the appellant had knowledge, intention, or participation in the murder plot or any unlawful activities.

“Merely giving of SIM from one person to another person cannot link the accused-appellant with the commission of offence,” the Bench stated, adding that “the confessional statement of co-accused by itself is insufficient to deny bail at this stage.”

“Mens Rea Absent—No Evidence of Conspiracy or Participation in Terror Activity”

The Court scrutinized the essential requirement of mens rea (guilty knowledge), which is a necessary ingredient for proving offences under Sections 120-B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) and UAPA provisions.

Despite the invocation of severe sections including Sections 121 and 121-A IPC (Waging War Against the State) and Sections 10, 13, 15 and 16 of UAPA, the High Court found that no overt act or conscious intent had been attributed to the appellant. His role was confined to allegedly passing a SIM card, which in itself did not justify continued incarceration.

The Court emphasized:“The prosecution case did not establish that appellant had knowledge that SIM card allegedly provided by him would be used for committing murder or terrorist act.”

“Challan Filed, Trial to Take Time—Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed Indefinitely in a Weak Evidentiary Scenario”

It was noted that the accused had been in custody since 30.07.2024, and with the challan already presented, there was no requirement for further custodial interrogation. The Bench underscored the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, and in such circumstances, bail cannot be denied merely because of the gravity of allegations when the evidence connecting the accused to the core act is tenuous at best.

“Continued incarceration not justified when role is limited and evidence largely documentary in nature,” the Court reasoned.

This judgment strikes at the heart of arbitrary pre-trial incarceration, especially in cases involving sweeping charges under UAPA and IPC without cogent material. The High Court’s approach reflects a balanced application of bail jurisprudence, recognizing that mere suspicion or remote association does not translate into guilt, particularly where confessional statements of co-accused are the only link.

The High Court ultimately held: “Without commenting upon the merit of the case, the instant appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing the bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate.”

Date of Decision: 1 December 2025