Court Holds Prima Facie Material Indicates Alleged Intent To Create Terror; Long Custody Alone Cannot Override UAPA Restrictions
LawDaily.org | Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has dismissed the bail appeal filed by Maya Kumari, an accused facing proceedings under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), observing that prima facie material placed on record indicated her alleged involvement in a conspiracy aimed at creating terror inside court premises.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji dismissed the appeal filed under the case Maya Kumari v. State of U.T. Chandigarh (CRA-D-1243-2024), challenging the order dated 30 May 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby her bail application was rejected.
The judgment was reserved on 22 May 2026 and pronounced on 17 July 2026.
The appellant was facing allegations under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, Sections 419, 471, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 17, 18, 18-B and 20 of the UAPA. The UAPA provisions were subsequently added to the FIR on 11 March 2024.
Background Of The Case
The case originated from FIR No. 29 dated 26 February 2024, registered at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh.
Initially, the FIR was registered under provisions of the Arms Act after the police allegedly recovered firearms and ammunition from two accused persons, namely Sunny @ Sachin @ Maddy Manchanda and Umang.
According to the prosecution, subsequent investigation revealed links between the accused persons and alleged members of a criminal network. Based on further investigation, provisions of the UAPA were added.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons had conducted reconnaissance of the District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula with the alleged objective of targeting gangster Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he appeared for court proceedings.
The prosecution further alleged that the conspiracy was carried out at the instance of designated terrorist Goldy Brar.
Arguments Advanced By Appellant
Appearing for Maya Kumari, counsel argued that there was insufficient material connecting her with any terrorist activity under the UAPA.
It was submitted that apart from recovery of:
- One mobile phone;
- Advocate attire consisting of a white shirt, black trousers and black coat;
there was no legally admissible evidence establishing her connection with any designated terrorist or any terrorist organisation.
The defence argued that the prosecution case was mainly based on allegations that the appellant had conducted recce along with co-accused Sunny and Umang.
However, according to the appellant, there was no material showing any direct connection with Goldy Brar.
The counsel also argued that the appellant had remained in custody for a considerable period and relied upon Supreme Court judgments including:
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
- Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra
- Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
- Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
to contend that prolonged incarceration can become a ground for bail considering the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prosecution’s Stand Before The High Court
The State opposed the bail plea and submitted that the appellant was involved in serious anti-national activities.
According to the prosecution, two persons, Sunny and Umang, were apprehended near Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh, on the basis of secret information.
During their search, one pistol and live cartridges were allegedly recovered. Further investigation resulted in the arrest of other accused persons, including Maya Kumari.
The prosecution alleged that Maya Kumari was arrested near Counter No. 30, Sector-43 Bus Stand, Chandigarh, and a backpack containing advocate attire was recovered from her.
The police also claimed recovery of a mobile phone and, pursuant to her disclosure statement, recovery of a pistol, live cartridges and broken pieces of mobile phones from an area near ISBT-43, Chandigarh.
Court Examines Restrictions Under Section 43-D(5) Of UAPA
The High Court examined the statutory restrictions imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
The provision creates a higher threshold for grant of bail in cases involving offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA.
The Court noted that an accused cannot be released on bail if, after examining the case diary or charge-sheet material, the Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true.
The Bench observed that the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) operate in addition to restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other applicable law.
Material Against Appellant Considered By Court
The High Court considered the material placed before it through the comprehensive affidavit filed by the State.
The Court noted that according to the prosecution:
- Maya Kumari was arrested with advocate clothing;
- She allegedly conducted reconnaissance of court premises;
- A mobile phone was recovered from her;
- Recovery of firearm and other articles was claimed pursuant to disclosure;
- She allegedly communicated through applications including Signal and Zangi.
The Court also considered allegations relating to use of false identity documents.
The prosecution claimed that the appellant used a fake Aadhaar card in the name of Pooja Sharma and stayed at various hotels using false identity details.
Court Considers Alleged Threat To Security Inside Court Premises
A significant observation made by the High Court was regarding the alleged location and objective of the conspiracy.
The Court noted that the alleged plan involved targeting a person inside court premises, which were described as the “Temple of Justice”.
The Bench observed that if a conspiracy is allegedly planned to commit murder inside court premises, such an act could create fear and terror among people who consider courts as places of safety and justice.
The Court observed that, at this stage, it could not conclude that there was no intention to create terror among people.
Long Custody Argument Rejected
The appellant had argued that prolonged custody entitled her to bail considering constitutional protections.
The High Court acknowledged that the right to speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that the Supreme Court has recognised prolonged incarceration as a relevant factor in UAPA bail matters.
However, the Bench held that the present case was different because the State had placed material indicating a specific role attributed to the appellant.
The Court observed that the appellant had undergone custody of approximately two years and five months, but it could not be said that the prosecution had failed to produce any incriminating material against her.
Court’s Finding On Alleged Terrorist Act
The High Court examined the definition of “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA.
The Court noted that the provision covers acts committed with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India, or with the intent to strike terror among people.
Considering the allegations and material placed on record, the Bench held that prima facie it could not be concluded that the appellant lacked the intent to create terror.
Therefore, the Court declined to grant regular bail.
Final Decision
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Maya Kumari seeking regular bail.
The Court clarified that observations made in the order were only for deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial court while deciding the case on merits.
Legal Significance Of The Judgment
The judgment highlights the strict approach adopted by courts while considering bail applications under the UAPA. While constitutional courts have repeatedly recognised that prolonged incarceration can violate the right to speedy trial, courts must also consider the special restrictions imposed under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
The ruling reiterates that where investigation material indicates a prima facie connection with alleged terrorist activities, courts may refuse bail despite long custody. The decision also reflects the balance courts attempt to maintain between individual liberty under Article 21 and national security concerns under special criminal legislation like UAPA.