Conspiracy To Murder Inside Court At Behest Of Designated Terrorist Goldy Brar Reflects Intent To Strike Terror: P&H High Court Denies UAPA Bail

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to a man accused of harbouring and financially aiding members of gangster Goldy Brar's network, who allegedly conspired to murder a rival gangster inside court premises. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 237]

The bench Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji held that a plot to kill a person within the "Temple of Justice" itself reflects an intent to strike terror in the minds of the people, sufficient to attract the rigours of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

It observed,

"If a conspiracy is hatched with a 'designated terrorist' like Goldy Brar to murder a person albeit a gangster within the precincts of a Court which is considered to be the 'Temple of Justice' then such an act would definitely create terror or would intend to create terror in the minds of the people of the country. Inside Court premises also, if a person is not secure, then the ordinary citizens at large would be naturally shocked and terrorised."

The Court was hearing a bail appeal filed by Parwinder Singh @ Pindu, challenging the order of the Special Judge, NIA Court, Chandigarh, dismissing his bail application in a case registered under the Arms Act, 1959, various provisions of the IPC, and Sections 17, 18, 18-B and 20 of the UAPA.

As per the prosecution's case, on instructions from Goldy Brar, the co-accused had carried out a reconnaissance of the District Court premises at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula on 12.02.2024, with the intention of killing a gangster, Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana, during one of his court appearances.

The appellant was alleged to have used his mobile phones to converse with Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan over Facebook messenger, to have brought Sunny and Umang from the railway station and sheltered them at his flat and later at a friend's flat, and to have received amounts of Rs. 49,900 and Rs. 16,000 from Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan in his bank account, which he then handed over to Sunny and Umang.

Counsel for the appellant argued that apart from the recovery of two mobile phones, no other incriminating material had been recovered from him, and that there was no legally admissible material to connect him to any "designated terrorist" so as to attract the UAPA.

It was submitted that, at best, the case against him was one of harbouring members of a gang under Section 19 of the UAPA, punishable with three years to life imprisonment, and that since he had already been in custody for over two years, he was entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration alone.

The Court examined Section 43-D of the UAPA, which mandates that no person accused of an offence under Chapters IV and VI of the Act be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been heard, and unless the Court, on perusing the case diary or the Section 173 CrPC report, is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true, restrictions the Court noted operate in addition to those under ordinary criminal law.

On examining the comprehensive affidavit, the Court found the bank statements corroborated the alleged transfer and handover of funds from Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through the appellant to Sunny and Umang, and that the CFSL's forensic examination of the recovered mobile phones had surfaced a recorded conversation involving Goldy Brar, whose voice was matched to publicly available material.

Goldy Brar, Rohit Godara and Vicky Chauhan, the Court noted, had all since been declared proclaimed offenders. On this basis, the Court held it could not be said that there was no material, even prima facie, connecting the appellant to designated terrorists.

Addressing the "long custody" argument, the Court distinguished the appellant's case, observing that while Article 21 does guarantee a right to speedy trial and the cited precedents recognise that prolonged custody can by itself justify bail under UAPA, the present case was not one where the State had failed to attribute any specific role to the appellant.

Having undergone about two years and five months of actual custody, the appellant's case, the Court held, was accompanied by prima facie evidence of his links to Sunny, Umang, and ultimately to Goldy Brar.

Created Atmosphere Of Terror In Court Premises

Examining the definition of "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the UAPA, the Court held that a conspiracy to murder a person,  even a gangster, within court premises, hatched at the instance of a designated terrorist, reflected an intent to strike terror, since insecurity within a court's own precincts would naturally shock and terrorise ordinary citizens. 

It noted that, "the appellant is facing trial for creating unlawful association and conspiracy for creating an atmosphere of terror in the court premises itself by aiding and abetting his co-accused Sunny, Umang and Maya to commit crime of murder of a gangster- Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana and prima facie evidence has been provided in the comprehensive affidavit to show his links with Sunny and Umang and ultimately with Goldy Brar, a designated terrorist."

It is true that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental right to protection of life and liberty, including the right to a speedy trial is enshrined. It has been held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, including the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant that a long custody itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to be granted bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it added. 

The Court found that the location for the intended act appeared to have been deliberately chosen with this very intent.

Holding that it could not, prima facie, be said that the appellant lacked the intent to strike terror, the Court declined to grant regular bail and dismissed the appeal, clarifying that its observations were confined to the limited purpose of deciding the bail appeal and would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Case: Parwinder Singh @ Pindu v. U.T. Chandigarh

Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate, For the appellant.

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate, For respondent-U.T. Chandigarh

Click here to read order