Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The basis of the case is FIR No.631 of 2022, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 302 IPC ("the 302 IPC FIR"), according to which, when the deceased Mahal Singh was reading newspaper outside his house on 13.10.2022, two motorcycle borne assailants approached him and opened indiscriminate fire, due to which he died on the spot. As soon as the informant of the case reached at the spot, the assailants had managed to escape from the place of incident. The FIR in that case records that, in fact, one Harjit Singh alias Kala had made a telephonic call from Canada and threatened the deceased by demanding money. According to the prosecution, named terrorist, co-accused Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, with the help of his associate Sukhdul Dunuke @ Sukkha and others agreed to kill the deceased; they hired shooter Sadhu Singh and Manpreet Singh @ Mani @ Chuchi and the appellant and others gave shelters, provided vehicles and other assistance to the shooters, which resulted into the killing of the deceased Mahal Singh. Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla had subsequently telephonically demanded money from the son of the deceased and threatened him to life. The prosecution case is that the appellant and others are threatening the witnesses. They are demanding money from various persons, which is an anti-social activity.

i) The offence under Section 302 IPC of killing of Mahal Singh was an isolated act. It has no connection with any terrorist activity.

ii) The appellant has already been granted bail in the offence under Section 302 IPC.

iii) The appellant did not have any connection with any known terrorist Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla.

iv) The appellant had no knowledge that the persons, who allegedly met the appellants, or whom the appellant allegedly provided motorcycle, were sent by Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla.

9. Learned State Counsel submits that the appellant did provide assistance to the main shooters; he provided motorcycle to them and other assistance; co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani @ Chuchi, who is one of the actual shooters, had knowledge that he was working for Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla.

10. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to whether there is any material to suggest that the appellant had any knowledge that the shooters were working for Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla? He has no answer to it. In fact, the case diary and the chargesheet is before the Court. The Court has perused it and required learned State Counsel to also indicate as to whether there is any material, which may even suggest that the appellant had knowledge that the act of killing of the deceased Mahal Singh was done at the instance of Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla. He could not indicate any such material.

20. If it is a property dispute in the killing of the deceased Mahal Singh, how could be termed as terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA Act?

21. One of the co-accused in 302 IPC FIR, Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla is a terrorist named in the 4th Schedule of the UAPA Act, but can it be said that merely because Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla, a terrorist, is associated in the killing of the deceased Mahal Singh, the appellant must have knowledge of the involvement of Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arsh Dalla as a person involved in the killing? How could such presumption be made?