Sanjay @ Fauji vs State Of Haryana

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Allowed as prayed for.

The present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (for short, the Trial Court) whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking regular bail in FIR No.428 dated 18.11.2014, registered at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, under Sections 147, 148, 114, 149, 186, 120-B, 188, 121, 121A, 122, 123, 224, 225, 307, 326A, 332, 333, 342, 353, 435 IPC, Section 25, 27, 30, 54 & 59 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Sections 16, 18, 20, 22C and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the UAPA), Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short-the Explosive Act) and Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short -the FIR in question), has been rejected.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 18.11.2014, to execute the warrants of arrest issued by this Court to arrest Baba Rampal, Inspector Anil Kumar was present at a distance of about 400 meters from Satlok Ashram, Barwala (for short-the Ashram). Senior police officials were also present there and when Inspector Anil Kumar alongwith other police officials, reached the Ashram to execute the aforesaid warrants of arrest, Baba Rampal got seated 600-700 women and children outside the gate of the Ashram and deputed 1500-2000 youths who were armed with lathis, dandas and guns on the roof of the Ashram. Inspector Anil Kumar then read out the warrants of arrest on a loud speaker and requested all present to maintain law and order. At that time, many persons holding plastic cans, filled with diesel/ petrol came outside the Ashram and threatened the police that if Baba Rampal would be arrested, they would sacrifice themselves or kill members of the police. Thereafter, the followers of Baba Rampal were then informed that 144 Cr.P.C. had been imposed and that they should abide by the law. The people gathered there, started pelting stones and then the police party was fired at, even petrol bombs were thrown at them. The JCB (crane) which was brought by the police was set ablaze and the police resorted to tear gas and used water cannons to disburse the crowd. As a result of the aforesaid violence, 111 police personnel were injured, out of whom 8 sustained fire arm injuries, one personnel received burn injuries, 17 personnel received grievous injuries and 85 personnel sustained simple injuries. Thus, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. During investigation conducted by the police, it was revealed that Baba Rampal along with his followers, was maintaining a mini army for execution of his illegal acts and the appellant, who was Baba Rampal’s son-in-law and an ex-serviceman, used to impart training to the members of the mini army of Baba Rampal. It would further reveal that such training was for the use of arms and lathis/ dandas etc. and these weapons were kept in the Ashram under the close supervision of the appellant. These weapons were the ones which were used under the supervision of Baba Rampal and the appellant, by the members of the said Baba Rampal’s mini army and his other followers to attack the police on 18.11.2014. The appellant approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him by the trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2026. Being aggrieved, the appellant earlier approached this Court by way of filing of CRA-D-1574-2024, however, the same was dismissed on 17.11.2025. Hence, the appellant is again before this Court by way of filing the present appeal for grant of concession of regular bail.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. He submit that the alleged occurrence took place about 11 years ago. He submits that there are total 942 accused persons in the present FIR, out of whom 940 have been granted bail. He submits that out of 942 accused persons, 148 accused are those who is facing charges under the UAPA and 146 out of them have been granted bail. He submits that most of the offences cited in the FIR are not even made out against the appellant. He submits that there is no credible evidence against the present appellant and the investigating agency has primarily relied upon the alleged disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not even an admissible evidence. He submits that the appellant was earlier granted interim bail twice, however, he has not misused the concession of interim bail. He submits that though the appellant was involved in 05 more cases, however, he has already been acquitted in all those cases. He submits that there is substantial change in circumstance ever since the dismissal of the earlier bail application as the main accused Ram Pal, has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026. He submits that while dismissing the earlier bail application, this Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek regular bail again after examination of 49 material witnesses. He submits that all the 49 witnesses have already been examined. He submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude as the prosecution has cited as many as 425 witnesses. He submits the appellant has already undergone an incarceration of more than 04 years. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant deserves to be granted bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the status report filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Sumit Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barwala, Hisar. She submits that in this case Baba Rampal and the appellant are the main accused. She submits that the appellant has been nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Rampal. She submits that the appellant used to train Baba Rampal’s followers for operating weapons. She submits that when the police officials reached there to execute the orders of this Court to arrest Baba Rampal, the appellant along with others started firing and threw petrol bombs on the police party resulting in 111 police officials getting injured. She submits that for 7 ½ years, the appellant absconded and evaded arrest and was declared as proclaimed offender and was lateron arrested on 16.07.2021. She submits that the appellant was acquitted in the FIR lodged against him for having been declared a proclaimed offender only on technical grounds as such FIR was based on a police report and not a complaint. She submits that out of the total 425 prosecution witnesses, 65 witnesses have been examined till date. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the appellant and submits that the appellant is involved in 05 other criminal cases, however, he has been acquitted in the same. She further submits that under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, a person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the said Act shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, upon perusal of the case diary or the report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of the onion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are prima facie true. She thus, submits that the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

This Court has heard learned Senior counsel and the State counsel and with their able assistance have appreciated the records.

For resolving the issue involved in the present case, it would be apposite to refer Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The same reads as follows:-

As per Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA shall, if in custody, be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such release and if the Court, on perusing the case diary or the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are prima facie proved. Section 43-D (6) further stipulates that restrictions for the grant of bail specified in Section 43-D (5) would be in addition to the restrictions provided under the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended before this Court that out of 942 accused, appellant is the only who is behind bars as on date. Though he is arrested after 7 ½ years but the prosecution had made no efforts to arrest him. It has been contended that the appellant was implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. The appellant is none-other than the son-in-law of the main accused i.e. Baba Rampal, however, Baba Rampal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was granted interim bail twice, firstly to attend the Bhog ceremony of his mother for one day in CRM-M-5772-2024 and again by way of CRM-24995-2026 for a period of one week on account of marriage of his daughter but he had not misused the concession of the interim bail. The appellant earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of bail and this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 declined the bail with a direction to the State to examine all the 49 material witnesses within 04 months and liberty was granted to the appellant to approach this Court again. This Court while declining the earlier bail petition observed as follows:-

Learned State counsel has placed on record the Status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Sumit Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barwala, Hisar. It is evident from the reply that the prosecution has examined 65 witnesses including all the 49 material witnesses which were directed by this Court to be examined while declining his earlier bail appeal vide order dated 17.11.2025.

The custody certificate shows that the appellant has suffered an incarceration of 04 years and 21 days as on 12.08.2026. The appellant was twice granted the interim bail as well and he did not misuse the concession of the same. All the co-accused including the main accused are already on bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the appellant on the ground that 14 of the accused have been declared proclaimed offender and they have not been arrested. On the direction of the Court, SSP, Hisar appeared before this Court through video conferencing and he has apprised this Court that SIT has already been constituted and about 50 raids have already been conducted to arrest all these accused. He has fairly submitted that these accused belongs to different regions i.e. Nepal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana etc. and so far they could not be arrested. The SIT is continuously carrying out the raids to arrest them.

In the recent judgment passed in ‘Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, Jammu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512’, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has held as under:-

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

In the attending facts and circumstances, it is apparent that all the material witnesses stand examined as directed by this Court. The appellant has suffered an incarceration of more than 04 years. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, perusing the record and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be granted bail to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The impugned order dated 15.04.2026 is hereby set aside. The bail granted to the appellant would be subject to the following conditions:-

Learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate would be at liberty to impose any other condition as it deems fit in addition to the abovementioned conditions and the prosecution would be at liberty to approach this Court for recalling of this order in case the appellant is found to be violating any condition of the bail granted.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.