E-Paper
Mohali: Relief denied to accused in 2021 Ludhiana court complex explosion case
According to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the explosion took place inside a bathroom near court no. 14 on the second floor of the complex on December 23, 2021
A special NIA court in Mohali has rejected the bail plea of Surmukh Singh, alias Sammu alias Nika Baba, an accused in the 2021 Ludhiana district court complex blast that left one person dead and five others injured.
The court of special judge Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa held that the material collected during investigation made out a prima facie case against the accused under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), thereby barring his release on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Act.
According to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the explosion took place inside a bathroom near court no. 14 on the second floor of the complex on December 23, 2021.
The blast killed Gagandeep Singh, alias Gagi, a dismissed Punjab Police head constable, who investigators said was carrying the improvised explosive device (IED).
Five other persons were injured and court property was damaged in the explosion.
The agency alleged that Surmukh Singh, a resident of Amritsar district, was in contact with Pakistan-based smugglers and terror handlers and facilitated the execution of the blast.
The prosecution told the court that co-accused Harpreet Singh, alias Happy Malaysia, along with Pakistan-based operatives including Zulfikar, alias Pehalwan, and Lakhbir Singh Brar, alias Rode, conspired to carry out a terror incident in Punjab.
The NIA further alleged that Surmukh formed a module
with co-accused persons, planned the collection and delivery of the IED, and arranged its handover to Gagandeep through other accused persons before the blast.
Investigators also claimed that the accused had indicated locations where the explosive was dropped using a drone and later concealed.
The defence, however, argued that the case was based primarily on disclosure statements and that no incriminating recovery had been made from the accused. It also sought bail on the grounds of prolonged custody and delay in trial.
Rejecting the plea, the court observed that mobile phone data linked the accused to Pakistan-based smugglers and international virtual numbers.
It further held that the gravity of the allegations, the possibility of influencing witnesses, and the statutory bar under UAPA weighed against granting bail.
