LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

GURWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 07-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 134 : 2024 INSC 92
Gurwinder Singh 
v. 
State of Punjab & Another
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 704 of 2024)
07 February 2024
[M.M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order passed 
by the Special Judge, rejecting the application filed u/s. 439 CrPC 
by the appellant seeking regular bail in a case registered under the 
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 alongwith other charges 
under the Penal Code and the Arms Act. 
Headnotes
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 43D (5), 17, 
18, 19 – Rejection of bail – On facts, charges u/ss. 17, 18, 19 
of the UAP Act, u/ss. 124A, 153A, 153B, 120-B IPC and u/ss. 
25 and 54 of Arms Act against the appellant along with other 
co-accused for raising funds for terrorist act, for conspiracy 
and for organising of terrorist camps – Bail application u/s. 
439 CrPC by the appellant – Rejected by the Special Judge 
as also the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Material available on record indicates the involvement of the 
appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of 
banned terrorist organization involving exchange of large quantum 
of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered 
– In such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is 
every likelihood that he would influence the key witnesses of the 
case which might hamper the process of justice – Furthermore, 
mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used 
as a ground to grant bail – Also mere fact that the accused has 
not received any funds or nothing incriminating was recovered 
from his mobile phone does not absolve him of his role in the 
instant crime – Thus, the material on record prima facie indicates 
the complicity of the accused as a part of the conspiracy since 
he was knowingly facilitating the commission of a preparatory act 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
135
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
towards the commission of terrorist act u/s. 18 – Bail application 
of the appellant is rejected – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 124A, 153A, 
153B, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 25 and 54. [Paras 32-34]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s. 43D (5) – Scope 
and limitations of bail under :
Held: s. 43D(5) modifies the application of the general bail provisions 
in respect of offences punishable under Chapter IV and Chapter VI 
of the Act – Discretion of Courts must tilt in favour that bail is the 
rule, jail is the exception unless circumstances justify otherwise 
does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under 
UAP Act – Exercise of the general power to grant bail under the 
UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – Words used in proviso 
to s. 43D (5) ‘shall not be released’ in contrast with the words as 
found in s. 437(1) CrPC ‘may be released’ suggests the intention 
of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule – 
Thus, the courts are burdened with a sensitive task on hand – In 
dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely 
examining if there is justification to reject bail – ‘Justifications’ must 
be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted 
before the Special Court – Bail must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if 
after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final 
report or Case Diary, the court arrives at a conclusion that there 
are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are 
prima facie true – It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not 
satisfied, the courts would proceed to decide the bail application in 
accordance with the ‘tripod test’-flight risk, influencing witnesses, 
tampering with evidence. [Paras 16, 18-20]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail applications 
– Test for rejection – Guidelines on the approach that Courts 
must partake in – Reiterated. [Para 23]
Case Law Cited
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, [2019] 5 SCR 1060: 
(2019) 5 SCC 1 – relied on.
Union of India v. KA Najeeb, [2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 
3 SCC 713; Devender Gupta v. National Investigating 
Agency : 2014 (2) ALD Cri. 251; Kekhriesatuo Tep and 
136
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Ors. v. National Investigation Agency [2023] 3 SCR 
523: (2023) 6 SCC 58; Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India 
: (2021) 4 SCC 704- referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Unlawful 
Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967; Arms 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.