UAPA Bail Rejected Despite Delay Condonation: P&H High Court Denies Relief in Grenade Attack Case Citing National Security & Criminal Antecedents

Case Name: Hardik Kamboj v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 01 April 2026

Citation: CRA-D-182-2026

Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in cases involving offences under the UAPA and Explosive Substances Act, bail must be denied where prima facie material indicates involvement and there exists a likelihood of repetition of offences affecting national security. Criminal antecedents and gravity of allegations are critical factors against grant of bail.

Summary: The appellant challenged the rejection of regular bail by the Sessions Court in a case involving allegations of a grenade/explosive attack on a police checkpoint. The High Court first condoned a delay of 97 days in filing the appeal, and thereafter proceeded to examine the merits of the bail plea.

As per the prosecution case, an explosion occurred within the boundary of a police post, and responsibility was allegedly claimed by a terrorist organization (Babbar Khalsa). The investigation revealed involvement of multiple accused persons, with digital and electronic evidence forming a significant part of the case.

The role attributed to the appellant was that of a handler who was allegedly in contact with operatives and facilitated the attack by sharing information and coordinating through social media platforms. The material collected included chats, audio-video clips, and digital records extracted from co-accused’s devices.

The Court also noted the criminal antecedents of the appellant, including involvement in other serious cases under UAPA, Explosive Act, Arms Act, and BNS provisions. The appellant was already in custody in another case when his role in the present case surfaced.

Applying the statutory bar under UAPA and relying on the Supreme Court judgment in UOI v. Barakathullah, the Court held that bail cannot be granted where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true. The Court emphasised that offences involving explosives and threats to national integrity stand on a different footing.

The Court further observed that releasing the appellant on bail posed a real likelihood of repetition of offences and could endanger public safety and national security.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and declined to grant bail, holding that the seriousness of allegations, prima facie evidence, criminal antecedents, and potential threat to national security outweighed the claim for liberty.