Maya Kumari v. The date when the judgment is reserved

Judgment

#1. 2. 3. 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof

22.05.2026 17.07.2026 20.07.2026 Full Not applicable CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Manvir Singh Sidhu, Advocate, For the appellant. Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate, For respondent-U.T. Chandigarh LAPITA BANERJI, J. The appellant has challenged the order dated May 30, 2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby her bail application in FIR No.29 of 26.02.2024 registered under Section 25,54,59 of the Arms Act, Sections 419, 471, 201, 120-B of the Indian CRA-D-1243-2024 Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 17, 18, 18-B and 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), at Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh, has

been dismissed. The provisions of UAPA were later added to the FIR on March 11, 2024.

#2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it has been alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, but except for recovery of one brown coloured mobile phone of Samsung make, one Advocate’s attire consisting of a white shirt, one pair of black trousers and one black coat, no other incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from her. There was no legally admissible material on record to establish the involvement of appellant with any “designated terrorist” which could even suggest that the appellant has committed an offence under the UAPA.

#3. He further argued that the case of the prosecution, at best, was that the appellant- Maya Kumari along with co-accused Sunny and Umang had done recce at the premises of District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula on February 12, 2024 with the motive of killing one gangster- Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he came for his court hearing, as per the instructions of the terrorist Goldy Brar. However, there was no material to connect the appellant with the said terrorist. The appellant has been incarcerated for more than two and a half years and on the basis of prolonged custody alone, the appellant should have been released on bail. CRA-D-1243-2024

#4. He has relied on the judgment of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1994)4 SCC 602 to submit that there was no allegation or the material to argue that the essential ingredients “constituting a terrorist act” as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA is present in this case. When such material is absent, the accused cannot be charged by invoking provisions of UAPA.

#5. He has further placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 498, Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

#6. The Court had directed the State to file a comprehensive affidavit after filing of the supplementary challan, vide order dated January 15, 2026. Pursuant to the said direction, the State has filed a comprehensive affidavit of Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police.

#7. Learned counsel for the State submits that appellant along with her co-accused involved in anti-national activities. The prosecution’s case is that on the basis of secret information, two boys CRA-D-1243-2024 were apprehended at around 11:45 pm on February 25, 2024 near Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The said boys were riding a white Activa without helmets. Upon enquiry, they revealed their names as Sunny @ Sachin @ Maddy Manchanda and Umang. Upon search being conducted, one pistol and a live cartridge was found from the right pocket of Sunny’s trousers and 03 live cartridges were recovered from Umang’s trousers. All the cartridges bore the mark of “KF 7.65” on the back. FIR No.29 was initially registered on February 26, 2024 under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act against Sunny and Umang. Upon disclosure made by both Sunny and Umang, co-accused Parwinder Singh @ Pindu along with Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger, Anmolpreet Singh and present appellant- Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma were arrested. Kailash Chauhan @ Tiger was arrested upon identification by Sunny while taking a stroll near the wall of the parking area of gate of District Court, Sector- 43, Chandigarh. One pistol and 02 live cartridges were recovered from him on February 26, 2024.

#8. Upon disclosure and identification by Sunny, Parwinder Singh @ Pindu was arrested on February 28, 2024 from TDI City, Sector-111, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A Verna car bearing registration No.CH01-BP-6918 and two mobile phones (one light grey coloured Apple phone with sim and another Oneplus Skyblue coloured phone with sim) were recovered from him and taken into police custody.

#9. On the very same day i.e February 28, 2024, Anmolpreet Singh was arrested from TDI City, Sector-111, SAS Nagar, Mohali upon CRA-D-1243-2024 disclosure and identification by Sunny that Anmolpreet was his friend and aide of Goldy Brar.

#10. The present appellant- Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma was arrested near Counter no. 30, Sector 43 Bus Stand the next day i.e on February 29, 2024 upon secret information and identification by Sunny. One slate colour backpack containing Advocate’s attire i.e. a pair of black coloured trousers, one black blazer and one white shirt was recovered from her. The said clothes were purchased from Van Heusen showroom at Elante Mall. One mobile phone was recovered from her and taken into police custody. According to prosecution, she also got recovered one pistol and two live cartridges and broken pieces like battery, back body, two parts of touch screen of mobile by Techno Company from the jungle behind ISBT-43, Chandigarh.

#11. Upon secret information and identification by present appellant-Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma, one Baljeet Singh was apprehended from House No.177/1, Phase-3, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) and a mobile phone VIVO (black colour with sim) was recovered from him along with a Splender bike.

#12. The case of prosecution is that upon instructions from Goldy Brar, co-accused Sunny, Umang and Maya had done recce at the premises of District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula on February 12, 2024 with the motive of killing one gangster- Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana when he came for his court hearing. The accused Sunny used to communicate with terrorists like Goldy Brar and Vicky Chauhan through his phone on Signal App. CRA-D-1243-2024

#13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

#14. At the outset, it is appropriate to refer to Section 43(D) of the UAPA. Section 43-D of the UAPA is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- “43 D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),— (a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and (b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:— “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days: the police officer making Provided also investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody. (3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that— CRA-D-1243-2024 . (a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof— (i) to “the State Government” shall be construed as a the State to “the Central Government or reference Government.”; (ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”; and (b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”. (4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub- section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

#15. 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 CRA-D-1243-2024 an opportunity of being heard on the application made by him for such relief 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 persons are prima facie proved. Section 43-D(6) further stipulates that restrictions for 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.

#16. From the comprehensive affidavit dated February 10, 2026 of Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh Police, it appears that the appellant was arrested near Counter No.30, Bus Stand Sector-43, Chandigarh on February 29, 2024 along with one slate coloured backpack from which an Advocate’s attire i.e. a pair of black trousers, one black blazer and one white shirt were recovered which were purchased from Van Heusen showroom, Elante Mall. Wearing the aforesaid dress, the said appellant conducted recce of District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula. One mobile phone was also recovered from the appellant-Maya Kumari and upon removing the cover of the said phone, a tax invoice issued by Harsh Trading Company, Nayagaon, Mohali, Punjab, was found inside the cover. From the said invoice, it transpired that one brown coloured mobile phone of Samsung make was purchased from said shop. The said phone was also taken into police custody. Furthermore, on her disclosure, one pistol along with 02 live cartridges inside one magazine, broken pieces i.e battery, back body of two mobile phones of Techno company, two parts CRA-D-1243-2024 of touch screen and one battery were also recovered from the jungle behind ISBT, Sector-43, Chandigarh. The appellant disclosed that she used to communicate with terrorist Goldy Brar and Rohit Godara from her mobile phone through applications like Signal, Zangi etc.

#17. Furthermore, the appellant-Maya Kumari disclosed that one Baljeet Singh, who was also apprehended by the police, used his Splendor bike to transport her from bus stand Sector-43, Chandigarh to his acquaintance’s residence at House No.2906, Sector-42, Chandigarh on 22nd and 23rd February, 2024 at the instance of one Rohit Godara. The said Baljeet Singh dropped the appellant Maya Kumari back to bus stand on February 29, 2024 at Rohit Godara’s instance. The appellant communicated with said Rohit Godara from Baljeet Singh’s phone through Signal App and Whatsapp.

#18. During investigation, it also transpired that co-accused Umang and Sunny stayed with the appellant in a lodge in Sector-43, Chandigarh. The visitors’ register of the said lodge has been annexed to the comprehensive affidavit. The appellant went with Sunny and Umang to Subway in Sector-90, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. CCTV footage of the said Subway has been referred to in the comprehensive affidavit. The phone belonging to Techno Company containing the evidence of commission of an offence and connection of appellant with the members of the terrorist gang was destroyed by her to shield them and only fragmented parts were retrieved by the Investigating Officers. She also impersonated herself as Pooja Sharma where her actual name is Kashish @ Maya. CRA-D-1243-2024

#19. The appellant used fake Aadhar Card in the name of Pooja Sharma and also fake address during her stay at Hotel Sun City, Sector- 42, Attawa, Chandigarh, Hotel Royal Brooks, Sector-22, Chandigarh, Hotel Purple, Nayagaon, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Copies of all the visitors’ registers and entries made therein have been appended with the comprehensive affidavit.

#20. Upon the appellant Maya Kumari’s disclosure, the police along with her reached House No.117/1, Sector 53, Phase-3, Mohali, where the appellant identified the said Baljeet Singh as the same boy who used to transport her to and fro from ISBT, Sector-43, Chandigarh. Upon her disclosure, Baljeet Singh was arrested on March 02, 2024. A Splendor bike bearing registration No.CH 01 BR 9851 that was recovered from him, was taken into custody along with black coloured VIVO mobile phone used by him.

#21. Upon arrest of Baljeet Singh, he disclosed that on February 22, 2024, he received a call from his aunt’s son Navdeep Singh, resident of Uttarakhand and upon his instructions, he had downloaded the Signal application. He was further instructed by Navdeep Singh to provide transportation to a girl from ISBT, Sector-43, Chandigarh to a safe place of residence. The photo of a girl was shared with him and the said girl was the appellant- Maya @ Kashish @ Pooja Sharma. She had the word ‘Kashish’ written on her left hand along with a tattoo of an AK-47 rifle.

#22. The appellant- Maya Kumari used to talk to Rohit Godara on Baljeet Singh’s phone vide the downloaded Signal App. On February 29, 2024, his cousin Navdeep Singh called to inform that other gang CRA-D-1243-2024 members were arrested and Baljeet Singh was required to drop the appellant back at the Bus Stand, Sector-43, Chandigarh. Upon such instructions, Baljeet Singh had dropped the appellant at the bus stand. The CCTV footage has been taken into police custody. The CDR (call detail records) and CAF were obtained from Airtel and Jio companies and the location of the accused were found near Elante Mall, Bus stand Sector-43, Chandigarh, District Courts at Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula.

#23. From the CFSL result received from Sector-36, Chandigarh and retrieval of the data from all the mobile phones, it transpired that co- accused Sunny and the appellant- Maya were wearing Advocate’s dress and Umang was seen in the back drop. Therefore, the connection of appellant- Maya Kumari with Sunny and Umang has been clearly established.

#24. The appellant is facing trial for creating unlawful association and conspiracy for creating an atmosphere of terror in the Court premises itself, by aiding and abetting her co-accused Sunny, Umang and Parwinder Singh @ Pindu to commit crime of murder of a gangster- Bhupinder @ Bhuppi Rana and prima facie evidence has been provided in the comprehensive affidavit to show her links with Sunny and Umang and ultimately with Goldy Brar, a designated terrorist.

#25. It is true that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental right to protection of life and liberty, including the right to a speedy trial is enshrined. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, including the ones cited by learned counsel for the CRA-D-1243-2024 appellant that a long custody itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to be granted bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

#26. In the present case, the appellant has undergone an actual sentence of 02 years and 05 months and this is not a case where the State has not been able to attribute any specific role, prima facie, to the appellant indicating her involvement with any offence under the UAPA. It cannot be said, at this stage, that no incriminating material has been collected by the State connecting the appellant to the intent of striking terror.

#27. The definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 needs to be considered at this juncture and the same is reproduced hereinafter: “15. Terrorist Act- (1) whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security [economic security] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,- (a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause - (i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or (ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or (iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or [(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or] CRA-D-1243-2024 (iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or (b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or (c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or [an international or inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act; or], commits a terrorist act. [(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.]

#28. If a conspiracy is hatched with the ‘designated terrorist’ like Goldy Brar to murder a person albeit a gangster within the precincts of a Court which is considered to be the ‘Temple of Justice’ then such an act would definitely create terror or would intend to create terror in the minds of the people of the country. If inside Court premises a person is not secure, then the ordinary citizens at large would be naturally shocked and terrorised. It is apparent that the place of commission of the act was chosen with the intent of striking terror in the minds of the people.

#29. In the light of above discussion, prima facie, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the minds of the people or any section of the people of India. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the appellant- Maya Kumari. CRA-D-1243-2024

#30. It is clarified that the observations made through the instant order have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present appeal seeking regular bail and that the same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

#31. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JULY 17, 2026 shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No