The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the bail pleas of two individuals allegedly linked with the banned organization Sikhs For Justice (SFJ), accused of planning unlawful activities near Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi temple just days before the Pran Pratistha ceremony on January 22, 2024.

The division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh heard the criminal appeal nos. 351 and 352 of 2024, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Security Act (NSA), seeking bail for Ajit Kumar Sharma and Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia. The appeals challenged the earlier bail rejection by the trial court.

Read also: Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Take Oath as Judges of Allahabad High Court

"The trial court has reasonably applied its mind to the facts presented. It cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at was baseless or lacked legal reasoning," observed the High Court, while upholding the lower court’s decision.

Background of the Case

According to the UP Police Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), the accused, along with another individual Shankar Lal Dusad, had planned to carry out disruptive activities at the Ram temple site under directions from Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, the self-styled leader of the SFJ.

Read also: Justice Yashwant Varma’s Oath at Allahabad High Court Draws Attention Amid Cash Row

The ATS alleged that:

• The accused forged documents to register a White Scorpio in Rajasthan.
• They travelled to Ayodhya on January 17, 2024.
• The intention was to display Khalistani flags during the temple ceremony.
• Forged Aadhaar cards, a map of the temple area, and fake registration documents were recovered from the vehicle.

“There is prima facie material indicating that the accused were involved in unlawful planning aimed at disturbing law and order,” noted the High Court.

Read also: SC Collegium Proposes Elevation of Eight Judicial Officers to Allahabad High Court Bench

The counsel representing the accused argued that:

• The accused are devotees of Lord Ram and came to Ayodhya to attend the consecration ceremony.
• They were searching for affordable accommodation at a Dharamshala and had no criminal intent.
• No incriminating evidence was found during the arrest.
• Their Aadhaar and Voter ID cards were genuine.
• No known Khalistani terrorist had been booked alongside them.
• They were falsely implicated in the case.

However, the court found these claims insufficient.

The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Shiv Nath Tilhari opposed the bail pleas, reiterating:

• The continuous communication among the accused.
• Their coordination with Dusad, the main conspirator.
• A threat post was shared by G.S. Pannu on Twitter after their arrest, warning the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and holding him responsible.
• If innocent, they should have informed the authorities about Dusad’s suspicious plans. Their silence indicated intentional involvement.

“The appellants' failure to alert law enforcement regarding Dusad’s activities reflects their ill-intent,” argued the state counsel.

The High Court examined:

• The forged vehicle registration, fake Aadhaar cards, and the map recovered from the Scorpio car.
• The ongoing investigation by ATS with adequate material collected.
• The lower court’s detailed assessment, which was found valid and based on factual evidence.

The bench concluded that the accused could not establish their innocence at the bail stage. Hence, the High Court upheld the rejection of bail and dismissed both appeals.

“Considering the seriousness of the allegations and material collected so far, it cannot be concluded that the accused were falsely implicated,” the court firmly stated.

The accused are booked under:

• Section 121A (Conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India)
• Sections 419, 420 (Cheating and impersonation)
• Sections 467, 468, 471 (Forgery and use of forged documents)
• Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Appearances

Counsel for Appellants: Senior Advocate IB Singh with Umang Rai, Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Arpit Shukla, Ishan Baghel, Pranshul Tripathi, Umang Rai, Veena Vijayan Rajes

Case title - Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia (As Per F.I.R.) vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2025