Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Bail In Gangster Network Case

It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical, and latest judgment titled Parwinder Singh @ Pindu v. U.T. Chandigarh in Case Number: CRA-D-1020 of 2024 (O&M) in Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:084786-DB that was reserved on May 22, 2026, and then finally pronounced on July 10, 2026, and uploaded on July 14, 2026, has denied regular bail to a man who was accused of harboring and providing financial assistance to members of gangster Goldy Brar’s network, who allegedly planned to murder a rival gangster during a court appearance.

There has to be zero tolerance for such heinous crimes, and that too within the precincts of the court!

We thus see that the Court found prima facie material linking the accused to the alleged conspirators and the transfer of funds used to support them. It also thus came as no wonder that the court's choosing court premises for the proposed killing indicated an intention to create fear among the public, bringing the allegations within the stringent bail restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

Key Highlights Of The Judgment

Opening Observations Of The Division Bench

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Lapita Banerji for a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Deepak Sibal and herself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that,

“The appellant has challenged the order dated July 16, 2024, passed by Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh, whereby his bail application in FIR No.29 of 26.02.2024 registered under Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 419, 471, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh has been dismissed.”

Statutory Provisions Involved

• Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959
• Sections 419, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
• Sections 17, 18, 18-B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)

Division Bench Considers the Appellant's Submissions

As we see, the Division Bench then observes in para. 2 that, “Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant has been involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, except for the recovery of two mobile phones, no other incriminating material has been alleged to have been recovered from him. There was no legally admissible material on record to establish the involvement of the appellant with any “designated terrorist” that could even suggest that the accused has committed an offense under the UAPA.”

State Directed to File Comprehensive Affidavit

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para. 7 that, “The Court had directed the State to file a comprehensive affidavit after filing of the supplementary challan January 15, 2026. Pursuant to the said direction, the state has filed a comprehensive affidavit of Dhiraj Kumar, deputy superintendent of police (crime), Chandigarh Police.”

Prosecution Version Before the Division Bench

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para. 8 laying bare that, “Learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant accused is involved in anti-national activities. The prosecution’s case is that on the basis of secret information, two boys were apprehended at around 11:45 pm on February 25, 2024, near Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The said boys were riding a white Activa without helmets. Upon inquiry, they revealed their names as Sunny, Sachin, Maddy Manchanda, and Umang. Upon search being conducted, one pistol and a live cartridge were found from the right pocket of Sunny’s trousers, and 03 live cartridges were recovered from Umang’s trousers. All the cartridges bore the mark of “KF 7.65” on the back. FIR No. 29 was initially registered on February 26, 2024, under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act against Sunny and Umang. Upon disclosure made by both Sunny and Umang, the present appellant—Parwinder Singh @ Pindu—along with Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger, Anmolpreet Singh, and Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma were arrested. Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger was arrested upon identification by Sunny while taking a stroll near the wall of the parking area of the gate of District Court, Sector-43, Chandigarh. One pistol and 02 live cartridges were recovered from him on February 26, 2024.”

Key Events in the Prosecution Case

Arrest of Parwinder Singh @ Pindu

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para. 9 that, “Upon disclosure and identification by Sunny, the present appellant-Parwinder Singh @ Pindu was arrested on February 28, 2024, from TDI City, Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A Verna car bearing registration No. CH01-BP-6918 and two mobile phones (one light grey colored Apple phone with a SIM and another OnePlus sky blue colored phone with a SIM) were recovered from him and taken into police custody.”

Recoveries from the Appellant

• Verna car bearing registration No. CH01-BP-6918.
• One light grey-colored Apple phone with SIM.
• One sky blue colored OnePlus phone with SIM.

Arrest of Anmolpreet Singh

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para. 10 that, “On the very same day, i.e., February 28, 2024, Anmolpreet Singh was arrested from TDI City, Sector 111, SAS Nagar, Mohali, upon disclosure and identification by Sunny that Anmolpreet was his friend and aide of Goldy Brar.”

Arrest of Maya, Kashish, and Pooja Sharma

As things stand, the Division Bench then reveals in para 11 that "One Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma was arrested near Counter No. 30, Sector 43 Bus Stand, on February 29, 2024, also upon secret information and identification by Sunny. One slate-colored backpack containing the advocate's dress, i.e., black-colored trousers, one black blazer, and one white shirt, was recovered from her. One mobile phone was recovered from her and taken into police custody. According to the prosecution, she also recovered one pistol and two live cartridges and broken pieces like a battery, a back body, and two parts of the touch screen of a mobile by the Techno Company from the jungle behind ISBT-43, Chandigarh.”

Items Recovered from Maya

• Slate-colored backpack.
• Advocate's dress consisting of:
  • Black-colored trousers.
  • Black blazer.
  • White shirt.
• One mobile phone.
• One pistol.
• Two live cartridges.
• Broken mobile phone components allegedly recovered from the jungle behind ISBT-43, Chandigarh.

Arrest of Baljeet Singh and Alleged Conspiracy

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 12 that, “Upon secret information and identification by Maya, Kashish, and Pooja Sharma, one Baljeet Singh was apprehended from House No. 177/1, Phase 3, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), and a mobile phone VIVO (black color with SIM) was recovered from him with a Splendor bike. The case of prosecution is that upon instructions from Goldy Brar, co-accused Sunny, Umang, and Maya had done reconnaissance at the premises of District Courts, Mohali, Chandigarh, and Panchkula on February 12, 2024, with the motive of killing gangster Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he came for his court hearing. The accused Sunny used to communicate with terrorists like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through his phone on the Signal app."

Prosecution Allegations Summary

• Baljeet Singh was apprehended from Phase 3, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
• A black Vivo mobile phone with a SIM was recovered.
• A Splender bike was also recovered.
• The prosecution alleges that, on the instructions of Goldy Brar, the co-accused conducted a recce of the District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh, and Panchkula on February 12, 2024.
• The alleged objective was to kill gangster Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana during a court appearance.
• The prosecution further alleges that Sunny communicated with Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through the Signal App.

High Court Analysis of Allegations and Bail Decision

Do further note, the Division Bench then notes in para 13 that, “The allegation against the appellant is that the mobile phones that were recovered from him were used by him to converse with the terrorists like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through Facebook Messenger, and the appellant worked as per their instructions. On February 9, 2024, the appellant, with the intention of harboring terrorists, had gone to Chandigarh railway station and brought Sunny and Umang (members of Goldy Brar’s gang) to his flat at TDI City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in his Verna car and thereafter shifted them to his friend Anmolpreet’s flat. A sum of Rs.49,900/- was sent by Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan to the SBI account of appellant Parwainder Singh @ Pindu on February 12, 2024, and the same was handed over by him to Sunny and Umang. On February 14, 2024, again the appellant received Rs. 16,000/- from Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan in his SBI account, which was handed over to Sunny and Umang.”

Key Allegations Against the Appellant

• Recovered mobile phones were allegedly used to communicate with Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through Facebook Messenger.
• The appellant allegedly acted on the instructions of the alleged terrorists.
• He allegedly transported Sunny and Umang, members of Goldy Brar's gang, from Chandigarh Railway Station to Mohali.
• He allegedly shifted them from his own flat to another flat belonging to his friend.
• He allegedly received and handed over funds amounting to Rs. 49,900 and Rs. 16,000 to Sunny and Umang.

UAPA Bail Restrictions Under Section 43-D

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 17 noting that, “As per Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, no person accused of an offense punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such relief and if the Court, on perusing the case diary or the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such persons are prima facie proved. Section 43-D(6) further stipulates that restrictions for grant of bail specified in Section 43-D(5) would be in addition to the restrictions provided under the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force on granting bail.”

Summary of Section 43-D Provisions

Court Assessment of Prima Facie Evidence

It is also worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para. 21 that, “In the present case, the appellant has undergone an actual sentence of 02 years and 05 months, and this is not a case where the State has not been able to attribute any specific role, prima facie, to the appellant indicating his involvement with any offense under the UAPA. It cannot be said, at this stage, that no incriminating material has been collected by the State connecting the appellant to the intent of striking terror.”

Court Observations on Evidence

• The appellant had undergone 2 years and 5 months of custody.
• The State attributed a specific prima facie role to the appellant.
• The Court found that incriminating material had been collected linking the appellant to the alleged intent of striking terror.

Court Premises as the "Temple of Justice"

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 23 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment, postulating precisely that, “If a conspiracy is hatched with a ‘designated terrorist’ like Goldy Brar to murder a person, albeit a gangster, within the precincts of a court, which is considered to be the ‘Temple of Justice,' then such an act would definitely create terror or would intend to create terror in the minds of the people of the country. Inside the court premises also, if a person is not secure, then the ordinary citizens at large would be naturally shocked and terrorized. It is apparent that the place of the commission of the act was chosen with the intent of striking terror in the minds of the people.”

Why the Location of the Offence Mattered

• The alleged conspiracy involved a designated terrorist.
• The alleged target was to be attacked inside court premises.
• The Court described the judiciary as the "Temple of Justice."
• The alleged act was considered capable of creating fear among the public.
• The Court observed that the location itself reflected an intent to strike terror.

High Court Refuses Regular Bail

Equally significant and as a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para. 24 that, “In the light of the above discussion, prima facie, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the intent to strike terror or be likely to strike terror in the minds of the people or any section of the people of India. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the appellant—Parwinder Singh @Pindu.”

Reasons for Denial of Bail

• The Court found prima facie material indicating intent to strike terror.
• The allegations attracted the stringent provisions of the UAPA.
• The statutory requirements for grant of regular bail were not satisfied.

Observations Limited to the Bail Stage

For the sake of clarity, the Division Bench then clarifies in para. 25, stating that “It is clarified that the observations made through the instant order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present appeal seeking regular bail and that the same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Final Order of the Division Bench

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para. 26 that "The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.”

Conclusion: Punjab And Haryana High Court Bail Ruling

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck the right chord by denying regular bail to a man who is an appellant—Parwinder Singh @ Pindu—accused of harboring and providing financial assistance to a member of gangster and ‘designated terrorist’ Goldy Brar’s network for perpetrating heinous crimes in the precincts of the court premises itself, which is so widely acclaimed to be the ‘Temple of Justice’ as was so graciously acknowledged also by the Chandigarh High Court in this leading case. It thus merits no reiterations that all the courts must in such similar cases emulate what has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this leading case so commendably. No denying!