P&H HC grants bail to one accused in Tarn Taran bomb blast case, says accusation is not prima facie true

Read Order: Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh v. National Investigation Agency

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 17,  2022:  While dealing with an appeal preferred by one of the accused in the Tarn Taran bomb blast case, whose bail application was dismissed by the Court of Special Judge, NIA, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to the appellant on the ground that the investigating agency was not able to establish his alleged connection with the terrorist organisation which was behind this blast. 

The Division Bench of Justice G .S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri said in this regard, “Keeping in view the cumulative discussion above and the fact that the appellant has been in custody for almost 2 years 4 months and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, this Court is of the considered opinion that on account of the material which has been collected against him in the investigation, it can be safely recorded that the accusation is not prima facie true and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.”

In the present case, an FIR under Section 304 of IPC read with Sections 4 & 5 of the  Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was lodged by the Police after receipt of secrete information which stated that a powerful blast occurred in a vacant plot which claimed the lives of two youngsters and severely injured one. The appellant along with his co-accused were arrested by the Police. On account of the gravity of the offence, the matter was referred to the NIA which further led to lodging of an FIR. 

The appellant moved an application before the Special Judge NIA for grant of bail, however the same was dismissed on the ground that though the appellant was not named in the FIR, yet during the investigation, his association with the pro-Khalistan terrorist gang to support the Khalistan movement came to light. The Special Judge also found the accused to be involved in inciting and advocating the commission of terrorist offences. Hence, the present appeal, impugning this order of dismissal was filed. 

The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant was arrested with his co-accused based on secret information received by the Police. The Counsel further argued that the appellant was named in the said FIR solely for allegedly becoming radicalized on meeting two of his co-accused in 2015- 2016. It was contended that the sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 had been granted under Section 13 & 20 of the 1967 Act by the Central Government, though it had also been asked under Section 120-B IPC.

Accordingly, it was contended that there was nothing on record to show that the appellant was a member of any terrorist organization involved in the commission of unlawful activity and, therefore, he was entitled to concession of bail during the pendency of the trial. 

The State counsel on the contrary opposed this bail plea on the ground that the appellant was in touch with the absconding mastermind of the incident. He further argued that the appellant underwent training sessions organised by the mastermind on making and testing bombs. Thus, citing the gravity of the offence, he made a case for denial of the grant of bail to the appellant. 

After going through the contents of the statements made by the appellant and his co-accused and also contents of the challan presented under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the Court observed that the investigating agency was not able to collect any incriminating evidence against the appellant. The Court however also noted that there were also averments made in the hatching of conspiracy between the appellant and seven other accused and there was recovery of social media accounts to show the appellant’s intention towards Khalistan.

Further, the Court observed that mainly because there were some Khalistani mentions spotted in his social media account which was offending in nature, would not as such be conclusive proof that the appellant was a member of a terrorist group.

The Court, while perusing data collected from appellant’s call records, observed that though few calls were made inter se between the appellant and one of his co-accused, yet apart from that the investigation did not reveal anything on whether the appellant was in touch with other eight accused. 

The Court further observed that though the sanction for prosecution qua the appellant was sought under provisions of Section 3 & 4 of 1908 Act and Sections 13 & 20 of the 1967 Act read with Section 120-B IPC, yet the Central Government granted sanction for prosecution under Section 13 & 20 of the 1967 Act and not under Section 120-B IPC, while the sanction under the 1908 Act is stated to have been granted by the District Magistrate. 

Reiterating the settled position that confession made before the police is a weak kind of evidence and it is a rampant practice by the police/investigation agency to use third-degree methods for extracting a confession, the High Court granted regular bail  to the appellant.