Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Bail Appeals in NIA Terror Funding Case; Holds Rigour of UAPA Not Diluted and Prima Facie Case Clearly Made Out
Case Name: Gurmej Singh vs. Union of India and Another; Gurmukh Singh vs. National Investigation Agency
Date of Judgment: 05 December 2025
Citation: CRA-D-1081-2022 and CRA-D-42-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ramesh Kumari
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second appeals against rejection of bail in a case involving terror funding, arms smuggling, explosives and narcotics linked to Pakistan-based handlers, holding that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act squarely applied. The Court found that the material on record disclosed a strong prima facie case showing active participation of the appellants in a larger terrorist conspiracy.
Summary: The case arises from FIR No.85 of 2021 registered at Police Station Mamdot, Ferozepur, which was later taken over by the National Investigation Agency and registered as RC No.31/2021/NIA/DLI. The prosecution alleges a well-organised cross-border conspiracy involving smuggling of arms, explosives, hand grenades, narcotics and terror funds from Pakistan into Punjab, coordinated by Pakistan-based terrorist Lakhbir Singh Rode alias Baba.
The allegations against appellant Gurmej Singh include receiving and delivering terror funds amounting to ₹8 lakh generated from narcotics smuggling, maintaining contact with Pakistan-based handlers through encrypted communication platforms, using proxy SIM cards, and facilitating movement of funds and consignments. Digital evidence recovered from his mobile phone allegedly showed extremist material and communication links with co-conspirators.
Appellant Gurmukh Singh was alleged to be directly involved in receiving and concealing multiple consignments of arms, grenades, detonators, IEDs and explosives at various locations in Punjab on instructions from the main handlers. Substantial recoveries of arms, explosives, cash, vehicles and communication devices were attributed to him. The prosecution asserted that both appellants were integral parts of two coordinated operational groups executing the conspiracy on ground.
The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that recoveries were planted, that they were not named in the initial FIR, and that prolonged incarceration entitled them to bail relying on constitutional considerations. The Court rejected these submissions, holding that the allegations were supported by recoveries, digital evidence, call records and statements forming a coherent chain of circumstances. The Court distinguished the reliance on K.A. Najeeb, observing that the present case involved grave national security concerns with active and continuing conspiracy, and that the trial was progressing.
Decision: Both appeals were dismissed. The High Court upheld the orders of the Special Judge rejecting bail and held that no case for grant of bail was made out in view of the prima facie evidence and the statutory bar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.