Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Lovepreet Singh in UAPA Case Due to Lack of Evidence Beyond Co-Accused's Statement

06 October 2024 5:46 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Besides the statement of the co-accused, there does not appear to be any material to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence" — Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Lovepreet Singh @ Labhi @ Love vs. State of Punjab, granted regular bail to the appellant, who was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The appellant had been in custody for nearly two years. The court set aside the lower court’s decision, noting that there was insufficient evidence beyond the co-accused's statement to connect the appellant to the alleged offences.

Lovepreet Singh was implicated in a case registered under multiple sections of the UAPA, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substances Act. The case stemmed from FIR No. 222, dated October 4, 2022, lodged at Police Station Baghapurana, Moga. The prosecution alleged that Lovepreet and other co-accused were involved in anti-national activities, including trafficking arms and ammunition from across the border. The appellant was allegedly part of a group planning to spread terror.

The appellant’s bail application was initially dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, on June 20, 2023. Lovepreet Singh subsequently appealed, citing lack of prima facie evidence connecting him to the offence and arguing that his only involvement was based on the statement of a co-accused, Harpreet Singh @ Hira.

The primary legal question before the court was whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true, as required under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of his direct involvement in the crime, aside from the co-accused’s statement. His counsel emphasized that no physical evidence, such as arms or ammunition, had been recovered from him, nor was there any material indicating his active participation in the alleged conspiracy.

The State opposed the bail, maintaining that Lovepreet had been involved in the conspiracy by traveling ahead of the other accused on a scooter, allegedly serving as a lookout to warn them about police barricades. Despite this claim, no recovery was made from Lovepreet Singh, and his counsel stressed that there was no corroborating evidence, such as call details or any other form of contact with the co-accused, at the time of their arrest.

Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, delivering the judgment, highlighted that the stringent provisions of the UAPA required careful scrutiny of evidence before denying bail. He noted that the appellant’s involvement was based solely on a statement from a co-accused, without any independent corroboration. Furthermore, no recovery had been made from Lovepreet Singh, and he had no prior criminal record before his involvement in this case.

The court ruled that the evidence against Lovepreet Singh was insufficient to justify his continued detention under the UAPA. Justice Grewal remarked that "there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true." The court also took into account that the appellant had already been in custody for more than 1 year and 11 months, further strengthening the case for granting bail.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh. He was ordered to be released on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate concerned.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh, finding that there was no substantive evidence linking him to the alleged offences, apart from the statement of a co-accused. The court emphasized that the stringent provisions of the UAPA require thorough examination of evidence before denying bail, and in this case, the prosecution failed to provide adequate material to justify further detention.

 

Date of Decision:September 24, 2024​.

Lovepreet Singh @ Labhi @ Love vs. State of Punjab

Latest Legal News