Self-Styled Godman Rampal's Son-In-Law Gets Bail In UAPA Case After 4 Yrs Custody; P&H High Court Notes All Material Witnesses Examined

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Sanjay @ Fauji, the son-in-law of self-styled godman Rampal, in the case arising from the November 2014 violence at Satlok Ashram, Barwala, in which 111 police personnel were injured during the execution of arrest warrants issued by the High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Deepak Manchanda noted that the appellant had undergone incarceration of four years and twenty-one days as on 12.08.2026, that the prosecution had by then examined all 49 material witnesses whose examination the Court had directed while declining his earlier bail plea, and that all co-accused including the main accused were already on bail. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 280]

FIR was registered in Hisar in 2014, under provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The prosecution case is that when Inspector Anil Kumar and other police officials reached the Ashram to execute arrest warrants issued by the High Court against Baba Rampal, some 600-700 women and children were seated outside the gate and 1,500-2,000 youths armed with lathis, dandas and guns were deputed on the roof.

After the warrants were read out over a loudspeaker and Section 144 CrPC was announced, persons carrying cans of diesel and petrol emerged and threatened the police; stones were then pelted, the police party was fired upon and petrol bombs were thrown. A JCB brought by the police was set ablaze, and tear gas and water cannons were used to disperse the crowd.

In all, 111 police personnel were injured, eight with firearm injuries, one with burn injuries, 17 with grievous injuries and 85 with simple injuries.

During investigation it was alleged that a "mini army" was being maintained for the execution of illegal acts, and that the appellant, an ex-serviceman, imparted training in the use of arms and lathis to its members, the weapons being kept at the Ashram under his supervision.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar declined bail on 15.04.2026. An earlier appeal, had been dismissed by the High Court on 17.11.2025.

Declining bail in November 2025, the Court had recorded that 49 material witnesses including doctors and Tehsildars were yet to be examined, and that since the appellant was the son-in-law of Baba Rampal , who has lakhs of followers in Haryana,  the possibility of those witnesses being influenced could not be ruled out.

It had, however, directed the State to produce all material witnesses within four months, granting the appellant liberty to renew his prayer thereafter.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai submitted that the occurrence was about eleven years old; that of 942 accused in the FIR, 940 had been granted bail, and of the 148 facing UAPA charges, 146 were on bail; that the appellant had been implicated on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible evidence.

It was further submitted that the grant of regular bail to Baba Rampal himself on 08.04.2026 constituted a substantial change in circumstances; that all 49 witnesses had since been examined; and that with 425 witnesses cited, the trial would take long to conclude.

Opposing, the State submitted that the appellant was a main accused who trained followers to operate weapons and participated in the firing and throwing of petrol bombs; that he had absconded for seven and a half years, was declared a proclaimed offender and was arrested only on 16.07.2021 and that his acquittal in the proclaimed-offender FIR was on the technical ground that it rested on a police report rather than a complaint. Reliance was placed on the embargo in Section 43-D(5) UAPA.

The Court recorded that 65 of the 425 witnesses had been examined, including all 49 material witnesses. On the State's submission that 14 accused remained proclaimed offenders, the SSP, Hisar appeared through video conferencing and apprised the Court that an SIT had been constituted and about 50 raids conducted, those accused belonging to different regions including Nepal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana.

'Bail Is The Rule' Under The UAPA

Setting out Section 43-D UAPA in full, the Court turned to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512.

The Court noted the Supreme Court's holding that the phrase "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" is not an empty statutory slogan but a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 and the presumption of innocence; that while statutes may calibrate how that principle applies, particularly in cases involving national security or terrorist offences, they cannot invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention and that the statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction operating subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22.

The Supreme Court had further observed that several decisions after Gurwinder have continued to apply the approach in Najeeb in granting bail under the UAPA on grounds of prolonged incarceration, gross delay in the conclusion of trial, and the absence of any realistic possibility of the trial concluding in the near future — and that the preference for bail cannot be displaced by legislation.

Observing that the veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of trial, the Bench held that with all material witnesses examined as directed and the appellant having suffered over four years' incarceration, he deserved to be granted bail.

Case Title: Sanjay @ Fauji v. State of Haryana

Appearances: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Mr. Akash Malik, Ms. Kashish Sahni, Ms. Pranhita Singh, Mr. Chand Rathi, Mr. Sachin Dass, Ms. Tejasvi Sheokand, Ms. Purvanshi Singh and Mr. Manvir Singh, Advocates for the appellant

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Click here to read order