Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court recently refused bail to two individuals, Pradeep Kumar (also known as Pradeep Poonia) and Ajit Kumar Sharma, alleged members of the ‘Sikh For Justice’ (SFJ) organization and purported Khalistani sympathizers. They were arrested in January 2024 on allegations of conducting reconnaissance around Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi Temple ahead of the Pran Pratistha (Consecration Ceremony) scheduled for January 22, 2024.
Background of the Case:
According to the Uttar Pradesh Police Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), under the direction of SFJ leader Guru Patwant Singh Pannu, an individual named Shankar Lal Dusad, along with the accused, procured and forged the registration of a white Scorpio car from Rajasthan. They allegedly traveled to Ayodhya on January 17, 2024, to conduct a reconnaissance of the Lord Rama Temple, with plans to display Khalistani protest flags during the ceremony on January 22.
Defense Counsel’s Submissions:
The appellants asserted that they are devotees of Lord Ram and intended to attend the Pran Pratistha ceremony in Ayodhya.
They claimed they were searching for affordable accommodation and were apprehended by the police before reaching their intended lodging.
The defense argued that the appellants’ Aadhaar and Voter ID cards are legitimate and genuine.
They contended that no incriminating evidence was found in their possession, and no alleged Khalistani terrorist associated with SFJ had been made an accused along with them.
Prosecution’s Submissions:
The Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Shiv Nath Tilhari, opposed the bail pleas, reiterating the allegations and highlighting the close connections between the co-accused, evidenced by frequent phone communications.
It was noted that following the appellants’ arrest, a message was posted on Pannu’s Twitter account, threatening the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and holding him accountable for the arrest of two pro-Khalistani youths from Ayodhya.
The prosecution argued that the appellants’ failure to inform the police about Dusad’s alleged illegal activities and intentions indicated their complicity.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, upheld the trial court’s decision to deny bail, noting that the lower court had found prima facie sufficient material indicating the appellants’ plan to disturb law and order in Ayodhya during the Pran Pratistha ceremony. The court observed that the trial court had considered the forged registration certificate of the Scorpio car, the Aadhaar cards, and the map recovered from the vehicle, leading to the conclusion that sufficient material had been collected by the ATS, and it could not be said that the appellants were falsely implicated. The investigation was ongoing, and the evidence was to be evaluated during the trial.
The High Court concluded that the trial court’s order contained a reasonable application of mind to all the facts presented and that the conclusions drawn were those that a reasonable, prudent person with sufficient knowledge of the law could arrive at. Consequently, the appeals against the bail rejection were dismissed.