A special NIA court in Chandigarh dismissed the regular bail application of Gurwinder Singh alias Laddy, an accused in the January 2024 Sector 5 firing and extortion case allegedly linked to designated terrorist Goldy Brar.

Special judge Bhawna Jain passed the order. She observed that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused were prima facie true, attracting the stringent provisions of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
According to the prosecution, the case pertains to firing outside the residence of a businessman in Sector 5, Chandigarh, on January 19, 2024, allegedly after he refused to meet extortion demands raised by Goldy Brar. The NIA alleged that the attack was part of a larger conspiracy aimed at targeting affluent businessmen through fear and intimidation.
The court noted that Gurwinder Singh allegedly played an active role in the conspiracy. As per the investigation, he conducted a survey of the targeted house along with co-accused persons, concealed weapons and ammunition at his residence, booked a hotel room in Mohali for the accused before the attack and accompanied the co-accused during the firing incident.
The prosecution also relied upon CCTV footage, call detail records, hotel documents, handwriting comparison reports and the recovery of two live cartridges and a motorcycle allegedly used in the crime. The court observed that these materials prima facie connected the accused with the offence.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution also relied upon CCTV footage, call detail records, hotel documents, handwriting comparison reports and the recovery of two live cartridges and a motorcycle allegedly used in the crime. The court observed that these materials prima facie connected the accused with the offence.
{{/usCountry}}The defence argued that the accused had remained in custody since January 2024 and that most protected witnesses had already been examined. However, the court noted that some protected witnesses were yet to testify and accepted the prosecution’s apprehension that the accused could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released on bail.
The bail plea was accordingly dismissed.