Nuh Communal Violence Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Three Accused on Parity, Denies Relief to Alleged Shooter Under UAPA
Case Name: Aadil v. State of Haryana; Faiyaz Ali v. State of Haryana; Mohammad Inam v. State of Haryana; Jakar @ Jakir v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2026
Citation: CRA-D-193-2025; CRA-D-120-2025; CRA-D-136-2025; CRA-D-1033-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ramesh Kumari
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where allegations against certain accused stand on parity with a co-accused already granted regular bail, similar concession can be extended. However, in cases where ballistic evidence prima facie connects an accused to the fatal firearm injury and the embargo under Section 45-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 applies, regular bail cannot be granted at the threshold.
Summary: The Court was seized of four connected appeals challenging orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, dismissing applications for regular bail in FIR No. 401 dated 01.08.2023 registered at Police Station City Nuh under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 149 IPC; Sections 25-54-59 Arms Act; and subsequently Sections 10, 11, 13(1)(a)(b), 15(1)(a)(b) and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 .
As per the complaint of Mahesh, on 31.07.2023 during ‘Jalabhishek Brij Mandal Yatra’ at Shiv Temple, Nalhar, a large mob allegedly attacked participants with stones and firearms. It was alleged that several named persons, including some of the present appellants, opened fire. Abhishek sustained a gunshot injury to the chest and later succumbed .
On behalf of Aadil, it was argued that he was a 20-year-old engineering student with clean antecedents and no specific overt act was attributed to him beyond general allegations of being part of the crowd. No incriminating recovery was effected from him and charges had not yet been framed .
Faiyaz Ali contended that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated only on the basis of disclosure statements. It was argued that his mobile tower location did not place him at the scene .
Mohammad Inam submitted that though allegations of firing were made, co-accused Altaf and Amin had already been granted bail and only a danda was allegedly recovered from him. No test identification parade was conducted .
In contrast, the State contended that accused Jakir alias Jakar had been specifically linked to the fatal gunshot. A country-made pistol and a used cartridge were recovered at his instance. The Forensic Science Laboratory report indicated that the bullet recovered from the body of deceased Abhishek matched the weapon recovered from Jakir. It was also submitted that he was involved in multiple other criminal cases .
The Court observed that so far as Aadil, Faiyaz Ali and Mohammad Inam were concerned, allegations against them stood on similar footing as co-accused Ayyaz Ali, who had already been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench. On the principle of parity, they were entitled to similar relief .
However, in the case of Jakir alias Jakar, the Court found that his complicity in causing the fatal firearm injury was prima facie established on the basis of ballistic matching of the recovered bullet with the weapon recovered from him. In view of the statutory embargo under Section 45-D of the UAPA and the distinct nature of allegations, his case stood on a different footing .
Decision: The appeals filed by Aadil, Faiyaz Ali and Mohammad Inam were allowed and they were ordered to be released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions including furnishing bail bonds of ₹1 lakh each with two sureties, surrender of passports, periodic appearance before the SHO, and non-interference with witnesses. The appeal filed by Jakir alias Jakar was dismissed. The trial Court was directed to take steps for expeditious conclusion of trial .