E-Paper
No bail for UP man in grenade attack on ex-Punjab minister’s house
According to the NIA’s case, unknown persons lobbed a grenade outside Kalia’s house at around 1 am on April 8, 2025
An NIA court in Mohali has dismissed the bail plea of a 21-year-old Uttar Pradesh man accused of carrying out a grenade attack at the Jalandhar residence of former Punjab minister Manoranjan Kalia in April 2025.
Special judge Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa rejected the bail application of Saidul Ameen, a resident of Amroha, in connection with a case registered under Sections 109, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
According to the NIA’s case, unknown persons lobbed a grenade outside Kalia’s house at around 1 am on April 8, 2025. The grenade damaged the main gate and an Innova parked inside the premises.
The court noted that the investigation allegedly established that Ameen contacted co-accused Manish alias Kaka Rana alias Ajay Kumar through Instagram in 2024 and later came in contact with Kulbeer Singh Sidhu, whom the agency described as his principal handler. The NIA alleged that Ameen received about ₹96,000 through different banking channels and used the funds for the conspiracy.
According to the prosecution, Ameen travelled from Uttar Pradesh to Jalandhar on Sidhu’s directions, conducted reconnaissance of the target on April 5 and 6, 2025, collected a hand grenade from a location in Tanda, Hoshiarpur, on April 7 and allegedly threw it at Kalia’s residence during the intervening night of April 7 and 8.
The court observed that the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicated Ameen’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Referring to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, the court said the statutory bar applies when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true. It also rejected the argument that prolonged incarceration justified bail, noting that the Supreme Court has held that delay in trial in grave UAPA cases cannot by itself justify bail.
The court further found a risk that Ameen could flee, influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released. It dismissed the bail plea while clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the main trial.
