Alleged Babbar Khalsa Terror Plot to Assassinate Hindu and Comrade Leaders: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail After 3 Years 7 Months as Prosecution Relies on Disputed Custodial Disclosure, Shows No Money or Arms Trail

Case Name: Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 20 August 2026

Citation: CRA-D No. 969 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that regular bail could be granted in a UAPA case where the accused had undergone three years and seven months of custody, only one of 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the prosecution’s case primarily rested upon a custodial disclosure statement whose admissibility under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act remained arguable.

The Court noted that the firearm recovery preceded the disclosure statement and, therefore, was not shown to be a discovery pursuant to that disclosure. At the bail stage, the State was also unable to refer to independent evidence establishing the accused’s link with the alleged gangsters, apart from the accused persons’ admissions or confessions. No financial trail or movement of weapons connecting the accused with the alleged conspiracy had been traced or disclosed.

Summary: The FIR was registered on secret information alleging that gangsters associated with the banned organisation Babbar Khalsa International and Sikhs for Justice were planning target killings to create terror and communal unrest in Punjab. The prosecution alleged that men, arms, ammunition and financial support were being arranged to assassinate Hindu leaders at Khanna and Mohali and a comrade leader in Jalandhar.

Nishan Singh was subsequently implicated and arrested on 17 January 2023 along with a co-accused. A .32-bore pistol, four live cartridges and an unregistered motorcycle were allegedly recovered from them. His subsequent disclosure statement referred to communications with other accused and the alleged plan to carry out target killings. The State also relied upon an alleged voice-recording transcript concerning the supply of weapons.

The appellant argued that he was not named in the original FIR, had no established financial connection with the alleged network and had not carried out any target killing. He had already remained in custody for three years and seven months, while the trial had progressed only to the examination of one out of 16 witnesses. It was also pointed out that an accused through whom his alleged gang connection was sought to be established had already been discharged by the Trial Court.

The High Court observed that the prosecution case against the appellant was primarily founded on his custodial disclosure. Whether the statement was admissible as information leading to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or was an inadmissible custodial confession barred by Section 25 required consideration at trial. The pistol and cartridges had already been recovered before the disclosure statement was recorded.

The Court further found that the State had not identified any independent evidence establishing the appellant’s connection with the alleged gangsters. No money trail or trail relating to the movement or supply of weapons had been shown. The appellant also had no other criminal antecedents except a prison offence arising from an alleged jail scuffle.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and granted regular bail considering the prolonged custody, slow progress of the trial, nature of the evidence, absence of substantial antecedents and arguable admissibility of the disclosure statement.