A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mohali has rejected the bail application of Dipender Partap, alias Dipen Rana, an accused in the grenade attack on the residence of a YouTuber in Jalandhar.
The court held that the investigating agency had validly obtained an extension of time to complete the probe after giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. It ruled that Dipender Partap was not entitled to statutory or default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The case pertains to a grenade attack at the residence of Navdeep Singh, alias Roger Sandhu, in Jalandhar on the intervening night of March 15 and 16, 2025. Initially registered by the Punjab Police, the case was later taken over by the NIA due to the seriousness of the offence. The agency subsequently re-registered the case under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Explosive Substances Act, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Dipender Partap has been in judicial custody since October 8, 2025. He sought bail on the ground that the NIA had failed to file the chargesheet within the prescribed 90-day period and claimed that the extension of time granted to the agency was illegal as he was allegedly not heard before the order was passed.
{{/usCountry}}Dipender Partap has been in judicial custody since October 8, 2025. He sought bail on the ground that the NIA had failed to file the chargesheet within the prescribed 90-day period and claimed that the extension of time granted to the agency was illegal as he was allegedly not heard before the order was passed.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the plea, the court observed that the NIA had filed an application on January 5 seeking an extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA before the expiry of the statutory period. The court noted that notice was issued to the accused and he was heard on January 6, 2026, prior to granting the extension.
The court further noted that the prosecution had placed sufficient material on record justifying the need for continued investigation and the accused’s custody.
The accused will remain in judicial custody while the NIA completes the investigation within the extended period granted by the court.