Khalistani mentions spotted in social media and mobile phone not conclusive proof of being terrorist:Punjab & Haryana High Court

 on 14 01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CRA D 226 2021 Reserved on : 22.12.2021Pronounced on: 14.01.2022Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh ... Appellant VersusNational Investigation Agency ... RespondentCORAM :HON BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIAHON BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURIPresent:Mr. Pratham Sethi Advocate for the appellant.Mr. S.S. Sandhu Advocate for the respondent.G.S. Sandhawalia J. The present appeal filed under Section 21of the NationalInvestigation Agency Act 2008is directed against theorder dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge NIA SAS Nagar Mohali whereby the bail application of the appellant was dismissed in FIR No.RC 20 2019 NIA DLI dated 23.09.2019 {arising out of FIR No.280 dated05.09.2019 under Section 304 IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the ExplosiveSubstances Act 1908lodged at Police Station Sadar TarnTaran}. The reason as such for the Special Judge to dismiss the bailapplication though the name of the applicant was not found in the FIR butduring the course of investigation as per the case of the prosecution it has comeon record that the appellant Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh was associated withthe pro Khalistan terrorist gang to support Khalistan movement. On account ofhis close association with co accused persons he hadadvocated abetted advised incited the commission of terrorist offences on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 2 and was also associated with the co accused persons in testingbombs. The prosecution had collected incriminating material duringthe screening of the digital data of his mobile phone and status ofWhatsapp account showing the accused s ideology towardsKhalistan state. His association with the other arrested persons thus established his nefarious intention and pro Khalistan activitiesand therefore in the absence of any ground for believing thataccusation of the appellant is prima facie false the bail applicationwas dismissed.Mr. Pratham Sethi Advocate for the appellant has takenus thoroughly through the paper book and the relevant provisions ofthe concerned Acts to argue that it was a case of bail and his clientwas in custody since 15.09.2019. It was his argument that theappellant had been arrested on 15.09.2019 by the Punjab Policealongwith other co accused on the basis of secret informationreceived. Thereafter a disclosure statement dated 21.10.2019(Annexure A 7) was taken from him that he alongwith co accusedMalkit Singh @ Sher Singhhad tested a Improvised ExplosiveDevicein the year 2016 in the month of October November near the Fatehgarh Churian Canal when the said Malkit Singh hadcome to his house and taken him there. The co accused MalkitSingh who has admittedly expired on 04.10.2021 during the trial hadalleged to have gone 50 feet away from the motorcycle and taken out on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 3 an IED from his pocket and blasted it and thereafter had left whileentrusting the bike to the appellant. Apart from that anotherdisclosure statement of the said co accused Malkit Singh is stated tobe there in the form of extra judicial confession recorded on23.12.2019 wherein he had mentioned that he had exploded a bombas a trial near the village canal and his friend Amarjeet Singh thepresent appellant was with him. The bomb had been given by oneBikkar Baba for checking of the explosion. It has thus the contention of the counsel for theappellant that as per the investigation itself he has been named in thesaid FIR only on account of the fact that he had met with ChandeepSingh @ Gabbarand Bikramjit Singh @ Bikkar Panjwar @Bikkar Baba in the year 2015 2016 and the allegation that hehad become highly radicalized. Accordingly it has been contendedthat the sanction under the Unlawful ActivitiesAct 1967has been granted under Section 13 & 20of the 1967 Act by the Central Government though it had also beenasked under Section 120 B IPC. It is accordingly contended thatthere is nothing on record to show that the appellant is a member ofany terrorist gang or terrorist organization and was involved in anyunlawful activity and therefore is entitled for concession of bailduring the pendency of the trial. It is submitted that he has been incustody almost for 2 years and 4 months and out of the 117witnesses only 5 have been examined and therefore the provisions on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 4 of Section 43 Dof the 1967 Act as such would not stand in theway.Mr. Sandhu on the other hand has vehemently opposedthe bail application on the ground that the master mind as suchbehind the said incidents was one Bikramjit Singh @ BikkarPanjwar @ Bikkar Babawho is stated to be absconding. Theappellant was in touch with him and had participated in the trainingorganized by him to make bombs and tested the bombs in thepresence of the deceased Malkit Singhon 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 6 which reads as under: “I alongwith Malkit Singh @ Sher Singh r o VillageKotla Gujjar Majitha Amritsar Rural tested an IED in theyear 2016 in the month of Oct Nov. Malkit Singh @ SherSingh came to my house and told me to accompany him onhis motorcycle. Thereafter he took me near the FatehgarhChurian Canal. Thereafter he parked the motorcycle on thebank of the canal. He asked me to stand near themotorcycle and thereafter Malkit Singh went 50 feet awayfrom the motorcycle and took out an IED from his pocketand blasted it after that a sound occurred alongwith smoke.Thereafter Malkit Singh had told me that he is going for“sewa” at Golden Temple. Malkit Singh told me to takebike and go home and I did the same.This disclosure statement was read over to allconcerned and explained to the accused Amarjeet Singh inbest understood language by him and was admitted to becorrectly recorded by the accused under custody. TheProceedings of this disclosure statement were started at1300 hrs and concluded at 1430 hrs on 21.10.2019. Allpresent including the accused in custody singed thedisclosure statement after fully understanding its contents.”Similarly the statement of Malkit Singh the earlier co accused and now deceased wherein the appellant has beenimplicated regarding his role as such reads as under: “Testing of the bomb at lonely place: He further disclosed that Bikkar Baba gave meagain a bomb made of steel to check its explosion. I mayalso mention that we had exploded bomb as a trial nearmy village canal at that time my friend namely AmarjitSingh s o Sh. Lakhwinder Singh r o Fatehgarh Churian on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 7 Road dist Amritsar was also with me.”The challan charge sheet under Section 173Cr.P.Cwas filed on 11.03.2020on the basis of which theappellant was arrested reads as under qua the role of the appellantarrayed as A 8: “17.1.2. Arrest of accused persons for theirinvolvement in the crime and conspiracy:During the course of investigation incriminatingrole of A 1 emerged in the instant crime and he wasarrested by Punjab Police on 15.09.2019. It was foundthat a Pro Khalistan terrorist gang was formed withassociation of A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 A 6 A 7 A 8 A 9 D 1 D 2 and other unknown associates. Further A 2 A 4 A 5 A 6 A 7 and A 8 were also arrested on15.09.2019 by Punjab Police due to their incriminatingrole in the instant crime. Sections 10 11 13 of the UA(P) Act 1967 and sections 153 A 120 B of IPC wereadded subsequently on 15.09.2019 in the instant case.During investigation it emerged that aforesaid accusedpersons came in contact with each other in 2015 duringprotest organized by them against sacrilege incident ofSri Guru Granth Sahib and formed a terrorist gang due tosimilar religious thoughts and started meeting atAmritsar and Tarn Taran. Further they planned to carryout violent acts against the members of a particularcommunity and followers of different religious ideology.They procured explosive material and training was givenby A 9 to the members of the terrorist gang for makingof Bombs Improvised Explosive Devices. In the middleof July 2019 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 5 and D 1 planned totarget Muradpura Dera of Divya Jyoti Jagran Sansthan in on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 8 Tarn Taran District founded by Ashutosh Maharaj. Theydecided to attack the Dera by throwing bombs in nighthours of 04.09.2019. On 4th Sep 2019 afternoon A 1received a call from A 2 telling that they would be readywith the bombs to target the Dera during night hours.Earlier A 2 A 3 and D 1 had made a reconnaissance ofthe above said Dera and found out that many followersof the Dera used to stay there during the night hours. A 2asked A 1 to accompany the group for the task.However A 1 told A 2 that he was far away from hisvillage. Around 8:24 PM A 1 received a phone call fromA 2 asking A 1 to reach Guru Nanak Super SpecialistHospital Tarn Taran. Around 9:00 PM A 1 reachednear the house of A 2 where he met parents of A 2 andA 1 was informed that A 3 has been seriously injuredand taken to hospital by A 2. Later on he went to thespot and found A 6 and other local boys who weresearching for the bodies of D 1 and D 2.”Thus from the above there is nothing incriminating quathe appellant which the investigating agency has been able to collect.Though there are also averments made in the hatching of conspiracybetween other 7 accused with the present appellant and there isrecovery of social media accounts to show the appellant s intentiontowards Khalistan. The said analyzation of the mobile phone of theappellant reads as under: “Analysis of Mobile phone of Amarjit Singh @ Amar(A 8): A 8 was using Instagramand Whatsapp application registeredwith Whatsapp 918070000732 @s.whatsapp.net. User on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 9 saved one mobile number +916284446242 as GuriKhalistani. One WhatsApp account registered withmobile number 9982888542 whose status on WhatsAppas “KhaLiSTANJiNDBaad!!” This establishes nefariousintention and pro khalistani attitude of A 8.”The investigation shows that he was in touch with oneof the accused Chandeep Singh @ Gabbarand 7 calls as suchhave been made inter se as per the inter connectivity chart amongstthe accused and their associates from the period of the CDR datafrom 01.01.2019 to 04.09.2019. The appellant is stated to have made3 calls inter se with Malkit Singhwho has now expired.Apart from this material above the investigation as such is not comeforth as to whether the appellant as such was in touch with othereight accused. Admittedly while taking sanction for prosecution quathe appellant provisions of Section 3 & 08 Act and Sections13 & 20 of the 1967 Act read with Section 120 B IPC were askedfor vide letter dated 02.03.2020 under Section 45of the 1967Act read with Section 196 Cr.P.C. The Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs vide communication dated 09.03.2020after making independent review of the evidence gathered in thecourse of the investigation with a help of a Retired Judge of the HighCourt and Retired Law Secretary recommended sanction forprosecution of the appellant under Section 13 & 20 of the 1967 Actand not under Section 120 B IPC. The sanction under the 1908 Actis stated to have been granted by the District Magistrate. Section 2 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 10andof 1967 Act read as under: “ Section 2"terrorist act" has the meaning assigned to it in section15 and the expressions "terrorism" and "terrorist" shall beconstrued accordingly"terrorist gang" means any association other thanterrorist organisation whether systematic or otherwise which is concerned with or involved in terrorist act“terrorist organisation” means an organisation listed inthe or an organisation operating under the same name as anorganisation so listed Sections 13 & 20 of the 1967 Act read as under: “13. Punishment for unlawful activitiesWhoever—(a) takes part in or commits or(b) advocates abets advises or incites thecommission of any unlawful activity shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.(2) Whoever in any way assists any unlawful activity ofany association declared unlawful under section 3 after thenotification by which it has been so declared has becomeeffective under sub sectionof that section shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extendto five years or with fine or with both.(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty agreement or convention entered into between theGovernment of India and the Government of any othercountry or to any negotiations therefor carried on by anyperson authorised in this behalf by the Government ofIndia.Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 11 20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang ororganisation. Any person who is a member of a terroristgang or a terrorist organisation which is involved in terroristact shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term whichmay extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liableto fine. A perusal of the above would go on to show thatpunishment for being involved in the unlawful activity under Section13 is for seven years if there is abetment or incitation of the same.Under the provisions of Section 20 the prosecution would have alsoto show that the person is a member of the terrorist gang or theterrorist organization as listed in the Schedule of the Act and it isalleged that the main accused Bikramjit Singh @ Bikkar Panjwar @Bikkar Baba is heading and associated with the terrorist organizationas mentioned in the first Schedule of the Act propagating thecreation of the independent Sikh State. Section 43 Dof the 1967 Act reads as under: “(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code noperson accused of an offence punishable under ChaptersIV and VI of this Act shall if in custody be released onbail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor hasbeen given an opportunity of being heard on theapplication for such release:Provided that such accused person shall not be released onbail or on his own bond if the Court on a perusal of thecase diary or the report made under section 173 of theCode is of the opinion that there are reasonable groundsfor believing that the accusation against such person 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 12 is prima facie true.”The said provision was subject matter of considerationin National Investigation Agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad ShahWatali 5 SCC 1 in co relation to the language used bySection 37 of the NDPS Act. It was accordingly held that theprovisions under the 1967 Act provides a degree of satisfactionlighter than the mandate of not guilty as required under the NDPSAct. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “23. By virtue of the proviso to sub sectionit isthe duty of the Court to be satisfied that there arereasonable grounds for believing that the accusationagainst the accused is prima facie true or otherwise. Ourattention was invited to the decisions of this Court whichhas had an occasion to deal with similar special provisionsin TADA and MCOCA. The principle underlying thosedecisions may have some bearing while considering theprayer for bail in relation to the offences under the 1967Act as well. Notably under the special enactments such asTADA MCOCA and the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act 1985 the Court is requiredto record its opinion that there are reasonable grounds forbelieving that the accused is “not guilty” of the allegedoffence. There is a degree of difference between thesatisfaction to be recorded by the Court that there arereasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “notguilty” of such offence and the satisfaction to be recordedfor the purposes of the 1967 Act that there are reasonablegrounds for believing that the accusation against suchperson is “prima facie” true. By its very nature theexpression “prima facie true” would mean that the 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 13 materials evidence collated by the investigating agency inreference to the accusation against the accused concernedin the first information report must prevail untilcontradicted and overcome or disproved by otherevidence and on the face of it shows the complicity ofsuch accused in the commission of the stated offence. Itmust be good and sufficient on its face to establish a givenfact or the chain of facts constituting the stated offence unless rebutted or contradicted. In one sense the degree ofsatisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine that theaccusation is “prima facie true” as compared to theopinion of the accused “not guilty” of such offence asrequired under the other special enactments. In any case the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the Court foropining that there are reasonable grounds for believingthat the accusation against the accused is prima facie true is lighter than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded forconsidering a discharge application or framing of chargesin relation to offences under the 1967 Act.”In Sudesh Kedia Vs. Union of India 4 SCC704 bail had been denied under the 1967 Act read with Arms Act on account of the fact that person named in the FIR was operative ofa terrorist gang and was extorting levy from coal traders transportersand contractors in the State of Jharkhand. The bail application hadbeen dismissed both by the Special Court and the High Court. TheApex Court allowed the bail application on the ground that no caseof conspiracy had been made out prima facie since the appellant hadonly met a member of the organization and on account of the factthat Rs.9 95 000 received from his house the amount could not be 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 14 stated to be received from terrorist activity. Reference was alsomade to provisions of Section 43 Dof the 1967 Act to hold thatit was the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examinethe entire record for the purpose of satisfying itself whether theprima facie case is made out against the accused or not. We are also of the opinion that this exercise has notbeen undertaken by the Special Judge in the manner which it wassupposed to examine the factum of the disclosure statement made bythe appellant and the co accused and the relevance of the same. It issettled position of the law that confession made before the police is aweak kind of evidence and it is a rampant practice by thepolice investigation agency to use third degree methods forextracting confession. As already been noticed above the appellantwas already rounded up by the Punjab Police on 15.09.2019 andthere is nothing on record to show that any other co accused hadbeen arrested earlier who made a disclosure statement or led thepolice to the appellant by giving any statement. Reliance can also be placed upon a three Judge Benchjudgment of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of TamilNadu 4 SCC 1 which was examining the confessions madeto the empowered officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act.Resultantly majority view discussed the settled position of law quaSections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act 1872 and the protection 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 15 which is granted to the accused qua the confessional statementsmade while in custody.Resultantly the conclusion arrived at was that theconfessional statements made would be barred under Section 25 ofthe Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account in order toconvict an accused under the NDPS Act. Reference has alreadybeen made above regarding the fact that the Apex Court has time andagain held that the requirement under the NDPS Act is more strictthan the 1967 Act and in such circumstances the observations of theApex Court in Tofan Singhs casewould be of greatrelevance.It is not disputed that the appellant is a resident ofVillage Fatehgarh Churian District Gurdaspur and he was arrestedby Tarn Taran police in the close vicinity of the place where initiallyblast had taken place 10 days earlier which prima facie would go onto show that no direct connection as such had been made by thepolice against him. Mainly because there are some Khalistanimentions spotted in his social media account which are of offendingnature as reproduced above which show that there are two mobilenumbers that have been saved under the title Guri Khalistani andanother mobile number wherein the entry reads as KhalistanJindabad would not as such be conclusive proof that the appellant isa member of a terrorist group. 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 16 Reference can also be made to the judgment of the ApexCourt passed in Thwaha Fasal Vs. Union of India 2021of Section 43D is not expectedto hold a mini trial. The Court is not supposed to examinethe merits and demerits of the evidence. If a charge sheet isalready filed the Court has to examine the material 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 17 forming a part of charge sheet for deciding the issuewhether there are reasonable grounds for believing that theaccusation against such a person is prima facie true. Whiledoing so the Court has to take the material in the chargesheet as it is. 24. Under sub sectionof Section 45 of the 1967Act the Court is not empowered to take cognizance of anyoffence under Chapters IV and VI without previoussanction of the Central Government. Procedure forobtaining sanction has been laid down in sub sectionofSection 45 which reads thus: “Sanction for prosecution under sub sectionof Section 45 consisting of a retired Judge 1 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 18 of a High Court and a retired Law Secretary as well as thereport submitted by the said authority. Paragraph 6 of thesaid order records prima facie satisfaction of the CentralGovernment that a case is made out against the accusedunder the provisions of the Act of 1967 as mentioned inletter dated 13th April 2020. Thus as of today sanctionunder sub sectionof Section 45 has not been accordedfor prosecuting the accused for the offence punishableunder Section 20 of the Act of 1967 and therefore as oftoday the Special Court under NIA Act cannot takecognizance of the offence punishable under Section 20.Therefore for deciding the issue of prima facie casecontemplated by sub sectionof Section 43D the caseagainst the both accused only under Sections 38 and 39 isrequired to be considered. In view of the absence ofsanction and the fact that NIA did not even seek sanctionfor the offence punishable under Section 20 a prima faciecase of the accused being involved in the said offence isnot made out at this stage. As stated earlier sub section11 SCC 612 wherein extra judicial confession ofBalwinder Singh was held to be not admissible in evidence as hewas not tried with the co accused and had been killed in a fakeencounter. It was held that the extra judicial confession made byhim could have been taken into consideration only if he was triedalongwith the co accused. Relevant portion of the said judgmentreads as under: “6. The extra judicial confession allegedly made byBalwinder Singh can only be considered under Section30 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The extra judicialconfession cannot be admitted in evidence as BalwinderSingh was not tried along with the appellants. It isinteresting to note that though a charge sheet was filedagainst Balwinder Singh in the judgment he is shown as aproclaimed offender. According to the prosecution Balwinder Singh was arrested on 18.4.1993. PW 45Gurnam Singh who was the Station House officer of thepolice station civil lines Patiala along with a Sub Inspector and three Constables was on patrol duty nearN.I.S. chowk Patiala on 18.4.1993. They came to knowthat one taxi driver who had committed various crimes hadbeen roaming in the city in a vehicle without registrationnumber. In the meanwhile one maruti car withoutregistration number came and the same was intercepted andits driver was taken into custody. He was in possession of apoint thirty two bore revolver loaded with five livecartridges. He told them that his name was BalwinderSingh. According to the prosecution he escaped fromcustody and was later declared as a proclaimed offender. 2 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 20 The counsel for the appellants contended that BalwinderSingh was killed in a fake encounter by the police forwhich a criminal case also is filed against some of thepolice officers. In any case Balwinder was never triedalong with the present appellants. The extra judicialconfession made by Balwinder Singh could have beentaken into consideration only when he was tried along withthe present appellants.”In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb 3 SCC713 it was similarly held that the statutory restriction under Section43 Dof the 1967 Act in comparison of Section 37 of the NDPSAct is less stringent. Keeping in view the right under Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India the prayer for cancellation of bail granted was not interfered with. Relevant portion of the said judgment readsas under: “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence ofstatutory restrictions like Section 43Dof UAPA persedoes not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grantbail on grounds of violation of Part III of theConstitution. Indeed both the restrictions under a Statueas well as the powers exercisable under ConstitutionalJurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas atcommencement of proceedings Courts are expected toappreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail butthe rigours of such provisions will melt down where thereis no likelihood of trial being completed within areasonable time and the period of incarceration alreadyundergone has exceeded a substantial part of theprescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguardagainst the possibility of provisions like Section 43D2 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 21 of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bailor for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedytrial.18. Adverting to the case at hand we areconscious of the fact that the charges levelled against therespondent are grave and a serious threat to societalharmony. Had it been a case at the threshold we wouldhave outrightly turned down the respondent’s prayer.However keeping in mind the length of the period spentby him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial beingcompleted anytime soon the High Court appears to havebeen left with no other option except to grant bail. Anattempt has been made to strike a balance between theappellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice andestablish the charges beyond any doubt andsimultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed underPart III of our Constitution have been well protected.19. Yet another reason which persuades us toenlarge the Respondent on bail is that Section 43D(5) ofthe UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section37 of the NDPS. Unlike the NDPS where the competentCourt needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused isnot guilty and that he is unlikely to commit anotheroffence while on bail there is no such precondition underthe UAPA. Instead Section 43Dof UAPA merelyprovides another possible ground for the competent Courtto refuse bail in addition to the wellsettled considerationslike gravity of the offence possibility of tampering withevidence influencing the witnesses or chance of theaccused evading the trial by absconsion etc.”Keeping in view the cumulative discussion above andthe fact that the appellant has been in custody for almost 2 years 4 2 on 14 01 CRA D 226 2021 22 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 thematerial which has been collected against him in the investigation itcan be safely recorded that the accusation is not prima facie true andhe is entitled for the benefit of regular bail during the pendency ofthe trial. The appellant be produced before the Special Courtwithin a week from today to enable him to seek bail by furnishingbail bonds surety bonds. The Special Court shall also put acondition that the appellant shall report in the local police stationafter every 15 days on 1st and 15th of the month at 10:00 AM beforethe concerned SHO to ensure that his whereabouts as such arealways ascertainable.The present appeal stands allowed accordingly.Needless to say the observations made herein are not binding uponthe merits of the case. JUDGE January 14 2022 JUDGENaveen shivaniWhether speaking reasoned:Yes NoWhether Reportable:Yes No 

Summary: The issue whether a person who mentions khalistan in his social media accounts and has contacts saved with khalistan reference is sufficient to determine if he is a terrorist was decided upon by the division bench of Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court consisting of Justices GS Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri in the matters between Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh v. National Investigation Agency CRA-D-226-2021 decided on 14.1.2022. The facts of the case are that this appeal is against the Special NIA Judge’s decision denying the accused bail on the grounds that the defendant was associated with a terrorist gang in support of the Khalistan movement.He was held under section 304 of IPC, 4th and 5th of the Explosives Act 1908, with a suspect who died while in pre-trial detention in 2016. Before his death, the co-defendant made an extrajudicial confession that the appellant was with him when he detonated a test bomb. While the Special Judge rejected his application for bail, he argued that the appellant’s relationship with other detainees had been established along with treacherous intent and pro-Khalistan activities. Reliance on incriminating documents collected by the prosecution from his mobile phone and WhatsApp account was also made. The counsel on behalf of the appellants contended he was booked simply because he had met other accused and also claimed that he was “highly radicalized”. There was nothing in the records to indicate that he was indeed a member of or involved in any terrorist gang or illegal activity. The court was informed that the applicant had been detained for 2 years and 4 months. The counsel on behalf of the respondents strongly opposed the bail application on the grounds that the master mind who was stated to have escaped was in contact with him and had attended the bomb-making training organized by him and tested the bombs in the presence of the late Malkit Singh.It was alleged that a criminal complaint was filed against the appellant in accordance with section 13, 18, 20 and 23 of the 1967 Act, section 120-B, section 153A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of the 1908 Act dated 03.12.2018. 2020. He referred to the sketch plan of the area where the IED was detonated by Malkit Singh in the presence of the appellant and argued, therefore, that there was no case for bail due to the gravity of the crimes, in which the appellant was involved.The appeal was on condition to report to the local police station every 15 days.