The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a UAPA accused allegedly involved in a plot to target-kill Hindu leaders in Punjab, holding that beyond the accused's own disclosure and confession, the State had "failed to refer to any evidence as would establish the link of the appellant with the alleged gangsters," and no financial trail or trail of weapons traced. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 293]

The Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur noted that the appellant had undergone actual custody of 3.7 years with only 1 of 16 prosecution witnesses examined, and that "arguable issues" existed regarding whether his disclosure statement fell within Section 27 of the Evidence Act or was instead a custodial confession barred by Section 25.

The FIR was registered in Mohali under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, on secret information that gangsters Jagdeep Singh @ Jaggu Bhagwanpuria, Amritpal Singh and others were associated with the banned Babbar Khalsa International, itself said to be operated by one Paramjit Singh, who is further linked to the banned Sikhs for Justice (SFJ). The information suggested the network was providing men, arms and finance for target killings intended to spread unrest in Punjab.

The appellant, Nishan Singh, and co-accused Yuvraj Singh were arrested on 17.01.2023, and a pistol with four live cartridges was recovered from them, along with a motorcycle without a registration plate.

During interrogation, the three, Nishan Singh, Yuvraj Singh and Jaspal Singh — allegedly disclosed a plan to murder Hindu leaders in Khanna and Mohali and a "comrade" leader in Jalandhar, with Amritpal having sent money for the purpose. The Sessions Court dismissed the appellant's bail application on April 29, citing the weapon recovery and the specific allegations of planned target killings.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that Nishan Singh was not originally named in the FIR; that the pistol and cartridges were recovered from him and Yuvraj Singh jointly while both were riding the same motorcycle, with the appellant driving and Yuvraj Singh riding pillion.

The State, in response, relied on the disclosure statement, the weapon recovery, and a voice-recording transcript between the appellant and Amritpal said to reference the supply of weapons, along with the appellant's alleged confession to a plan to murder Hindu leaders. Notably, the State did not dispute the period of custody, the stage of trial, the number of witnesses examined, or that Jaggu Bhagwanpuria had been discharged.

After examining the submissions, the Court held that recovery of the pistol and cartridges preceded the disclosure statement, and beyond the appellant's own admissions the State had not pointed to any evidence establishing his link with the alleged gangsters.

The Court also noted the appellant had no criminal antecedents apart from one prison offence arising from a scuffle while in custody.

Weighing the period of custody, the nature of the evidence, his antecedents, the stage of trial, and the arguable admissibility questions around the disclosure statement  and expressly without commenting on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.

Case Title: Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab

Appearances: Mr. Divjot Singh Chadha, Advocate, for the appellant;

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Click here to read order