Grenade Attack Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail, Cites Threat to National Security and Terror Links
Case Name: Baljeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 10.04.2026
Citation: CRA-D-239-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Held: The High Court held that bail cannot be granted in cases involving terrorist activities and explosive offences where prima facie evidence indicates involvement in a larger conspiracy, particularly when such acts threaten national security and public safety.
Summary: The present appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the dismissal of regular bail by the Sessions Court in a case involving offences under the Explosive Substances Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The case arose from a grenade explosion near Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar. Though no loss of life occurred, the incident led to registration of an FIR. Subsequently, a group claimed responsibility for the attack through electronic media. During investigation, CCTV footage and call detail records led to the arrest of co-accused and eventually to the involvement of the appellant, allegedly acting under directions of foreign handlers.
The appellant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the alleged communication was through untraceable virtual numbers, and that CCTV evidence did not conclusively establish his role. It was also contended that he had been granted bail in another case and therefore deserved similar relief.
The Court rejected these arguments, holding that non-mentioning in the FIR was inconsequential given the nature of the incident. It further observed that the use of virtual numbers or encrypted communication cannot be a ground for bail when investigation has uncovered links with terrorist elements. The Court emphasized that such technological loopholes cannot dilute the seriousness of allegations.
The Court also took note of the detailed role attributed to the appellant, including surveillance of the police station, transportation of explosives, and active participation in the execution of the grenade attack. Evidence such as disclosure statements, CCTV footage, and call records were considered sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant bail, observing that the allegations involved grave offences affecting the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The Court held that the existence of prima facie evidence, coupled with the likelihood of the appellant engaging in similar activities if released, militated against grant of bail. It further stressed that offences involving terrorism and explosives must be dealt with a strict approach. While denying relief, the Court directed expeditious trial and cautioned against unnecessary adjournments to ensure timely conclusion of proceedings.