‘27 absences, no bail’: Punjab and Haryana High Court slams accused for creating ‘artificial’ delay in Ludhiana blast trial
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused bail to an accused in the Ludhiana court blast case, noting evidence of links with Pakistan-based smugglers and trial delay tactics.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances, the appellant is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on delay in custody, the court held. (Image is generated using AI)
Punjab and Haryana High Court news: The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied bail to a man allegedly involved with Pakistan-based smugglers in the 2021 Ludhiana District Court bomb blast case, holding that the repeated absence of defence counsel on 27 out of 32 occasions is a deliberate conspiracy.
A bench of justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur was hearing the man’s plea challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) court’s decision to deny him bail.
There is evidence of the appellant’s involvement with Pakistan-based smugglers and the recovery of large amounts of ammunition from them, the court said.
The court noted, in its order on March 7, that in cases that affect multiple accused, the one with a weaker case artificially delays the matter to attract the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“The accused did not file any application to give him a legal aid counsel or to change the counsel. Thus, on the face of it, it shows a conspiracy and purposeful absence of counsel on behalf of the accused to delay the trial,” the court said.
Findings
The criminal conspiracy is highlighted because, as per the order sheets handed over by the NIA counsel to the court, the matter was adjourned on 32 dates, out of which the counsel for Rajan Preet Singh was absent on 27 dates.
In a case involving multiple accused, one or the other such accused with a weaker case, tries to delay the matter by artificially triggering the right against delay in trial, guaranteed under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, and the present matter is one such instance.
The trial is pending, not because of the delay, totally attributed to the NIA or the court, but on 27 occasions, the counsel for Singh was absent.
Singh did not file any application for a legal aid counsel or to change the counsel.
It shows a conspiracy and purposeful absence of counsel on his behalf to delay the trial.
There is evidence of the appellant’s involvement with Pakistan-based smugglers and the recovery of large amounts of ammunition from them.
Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, the appellant is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on delay in custody.
Background
On December 23, 2021, at around 12.30 pm, an explosion took place in a bathroom situated near a courtroom in the District Court Complex, Ludhiana.
One person died in the explosion and five others were injured. The deceased was later found to be allegedly linked to terrorist organisations.
Based on the blast, the Punjab Police registered a First Information Report (FIR).
On January 11, 2021, through an order, the central government transferred the matter to the NIA.
The person who died at the spot was identified as Gagandeep Singh, a dismissed head constable of the Punjab Police, and during the investigation, he was allegedly found to be the handler of the bomb.
The investigation also found the alleged involvement of Pakistan-based smugglers and the receipt of the bomb from them.
The probe continued, and the present appellant, Rajan Preet Singh, was arraigned as an accused based on the disclosure by a person during the investigation.
The allegations against Singh are that he was the main person who had handed over the bomb to the handler, and he was also doing a recce of the location and was fully involved in the conspiracy.
The investigation also allegedly revealed that Lakhbir Singh Rode, the head of Khalistan Liberation Force and International Sikh Youth Federation, had planned to execute Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blasts at various places in Punjab, and the explosion was part of the said conspiracy.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
There is evidence of the appellant’s involvement with Pakistan-based smugglers and the recovery of large amounts of ammunition from them, the court said.
