Allahabad HC Refuses Bail To Alleged SFJ Members Accused Of 'Recce' Around Ayodhya's Ram Temple Ahead Of Consecration Ceremony

The Allahabad High Court last week refused bail to two alleged 'Sikh For Justice' Members and Khalistani sympathisers, who were arrested in January last year on the allegations of conducting 'recce' around Ayodhya's Ram Janm Bhoomi Temple. A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh noted that the trial court, while denying bail to them had found prima facie sufficient material against them that they planned to disturb law and order in Ayodhya on January 22, the day when the Pran Pratistha (Consecration Ceremony) was scheduled to be held of at Lord Ram Temple. “The trial court has considered the forged Registration Certificate of Scorpio Car and also the Aadhar Cards as well as the map, that was recovered from the Scorpio Car and has prima facie come to the conclusion that till the date of decision of the bail application(s) sufficient material had been collected by the A.T.S. and it could not be said that the appellants were falsely implicated. The investigation was going on and the evidence was to be evaluated at the time to trial,” the bench further remarked as it dismissed their appeals against the trial court's bail rejection order. The accused (Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia and Ajit Kumar Sharma), booked under Sections 121A, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, were arrested by the UP Police Anti-Terrorist Squad on 19 January 2024. As per ATS, at the direction of Guru Patwant Singh Pannu, the leader of the "Sikhs for Justice" organization, one Shankar Lal Dusad, along with co-accused procured and forged the registration of a White Scorpio car from Rajasthan, they travelled to Ayodhya on January 17, 2024 to conduct a recee of the Lord Rama Temple, as they planned to display Khalistani protest flags during the ceremony on January 22. Seeking bail in the case, the accused's counsel argued that the appellants are devotees of Lord Ram, and they planned to attend the Pran Pratishtha ceremony at Ayodhya, and they intended to stay at a Dharamshala but were apprehended by the police before reaching their accommodation.It was also submitted that while the FIR claims they were conducting a recce of the Temple area, they were actually looking for an affordable place to stay. It was also contended that no incriminating evidence was found from them their Aadhar and Voter ID cards were also are legitimate and genuine and that no person who was an alleged Khalistani terrorist working for 'SFJ' had been made an accused along with the appellants. On the other hand, AGA Shiv Nath Tilhari opposed their bail pleas by reiterating the allegations against them and the fact that the co-accused were closely connected and were constantly talking to each other on the phone. It was also apprised to the bench that soon after the arrest of the appellants, a message was posted on the Twitter account of Pannu, wherein a threat was extended to the Chief Minister of the State, holding him accountable for arresting two pro-Khalishani youth from Ayodhya. Lastly, it was also argued that if the appellants were not involved in any conspiracy with Dusad, they could have informed the police in time regarding the illegal activities and intention of their co-traveller Dusad (about recee ). However, they did not do so, which shows their ill intentions. Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court upheld the trial court's bail rejection order as it noted that the impugned order contained a reasonable application of mind by the Judge to all the facts that were placed before him. It cannot be said that the conclusion that he has arrived at could not have been arrived at by a reasonable, prudent man having sufficient knowledge of law, the bench observed as it dismissed their appeals. Appearances Counsel for Appellants: Senior Advocate IB Singh with Umang Rai, Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Arpit Shukla, Ishan Baghel, Pranshul Tripathi, Umang Rai, Veena Vijayan Rajes Case title - Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia (As Per F.I.R.) vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 114 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 114 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad HC Refuses Bail To Alleged SFJ Members Accused Of 'Recce' Around Ayodhya's Ram Temple Ahead Of Consecration Ceremony

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags