Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in Case Alleging Bomb Conspiracy Linked to Gangster; Notes Lack of Independent Evidence
Case Name: Bhupinder Kaur and Another vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-15736-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioners after observing that the allegations against them were based solely on secret information and disclosure statements, without any corroborating evidence, recovery, call records, or material linking them directly to the planting of the explosive device. The Court held that mere association with a primary accused who happened to be a family member cannot justify continued pre-trial incarceration in the absence of admissible evidence. The Court further noted that despite the seriousness of allegations involving an improvised explosive device containing RDX, the case was not handed over to any specialised central agency such as NIA, and investigation had concluded with nothing substantive recovered from the petitioners.
Summary: The FIR was registered after a purported IED wrapped in tape with detonators and wiring was found outside Police Station Ajnala and later neutralised by the bomb disposal unit. After initial investigation, the petitioners mother and sister of alleged gangster Harpreet Singh @ Happy Pashia were arrested on the basis of secret inputs alleging that they supported the gang leader by sheltering associates, communicating through virtual numbers, facilitating money transfers, and assisting in reconnaissance activities. The prosecution relied on disclosure statements to allege their role, including providing food and shelter to co-accused prior to the incident.
The petitioners argued that there was no recovery, no incriminating digital or documentary evidence, and that CCTV footage from their residence would show they were forcibly taken into custody. It was further submitted that they were implicated to compel the main accused currently abroad and facing extradition to surrender. The trial had not commenced and they had remained in custody since November 2024. The State opposed bail citing national security concerns and alleged involvement in activities aimed at disturbing sovereignty.
The Court noted that no call detail records, surveillance records, technical evidence, or forensic linkage had been produced. It also considered the earlier proceedings in which petitioner No.1 had approached the Court seeking protection alleging possible false implication, during which the State had at that time denied her involvement.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The Court held that the evidentiary record did not justify continued incarceration, particularly where disclosure statements were uncorroborated and no recovery followed from them. It further observed that the IED was defused, no casualties occurred, investigation stood concluded, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The petitioners were directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court clarified that nothing in the order should be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.