“‘Prima Facie Material Collected Against Accused’: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Alleged SFJ-Linked Men in Ram Mandir Recce Case
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, rejected the bail applications of two appellants in connection with an alleged conspiracy concerning the Ram Janm Bhoomi event scheduled on January 22, 2024. The Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A., Lucknow, which had earlier rejected the bail applications.
The Division Bench observed that the trial court had exercised a reasonable application of mind based on the available material on record, which indicated prima facie involvement of the appellants in attempting to disturb law and order on the day of the religious ceremony in Ayodhya.
The matter arose from Case Crime No. 01/2024 registered at Police Station A.T.S., Lucknow, under Sections 121A, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appeals were filed against the rejection of bail applications dated February 19, 2024, by the Special Judge, N.I.A., Lucknow.
The appellants, Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia and Ajit Kumar Sharma, were apprehended along with a co-accused, Shankar Lal Dusad, before reaching accommodation in Ayodhya. The prosecution alleged that they were conducting reconnaissance of the Ram Janm Bhoomi area in furtherance of a conspiracy linked to Khalistani sympathizers.
The FIR was lodged by Gyanendra Pratap Singh on January 19, 2024, at 8:34 p.m. It alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused persons, were involved in a plot to unfurl Khalistani flags at the Shri Ram Janm Bhoomi site during the Pran Pratishtha ceremony attended by the Prime Minister and other dignitaries.
The appellants argued through counsel that they were residents of Rajasthan, visiting Ayodhya as devotees of Lord Ram. They contended that they were searching for accommodation when detained and that the materials allegedly recovered from them, including mobile phones and identity cards, were not incriminating. It was stated, "Even in the F.I.R. nothing incriminating has been shown to have been recovered from the appellants."
They further submitted that the vehicle used was not stolen and belonged to a friend of the co-accused. The Aadhar and Voter ID cards were claimed to be genuine. The defence stated the lack of direct connection between the appellants and any Khalistani figure. "No direct phone calls have been found to have been made by the appellants...with Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakkha or with Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma," the defence submitted.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, presented material from the case diary, including alleged connections of co-accused Shankar Lal Dusad with known Khalistani individuals, including Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukkha.
The prosecution cited call records indicating 273 conversations between appellant Pradeep Kumar and co-accused Shankar Lal Dusad, and 23 between Ajit Kumar Sharma and the same co-accused. The SIM card used was in the name of a neighbour of Dusad. Two forged Aadhar Cards and a forged vehicle registration certificate were also cited.
The State submitted that, "a map was also found under the seat of the Scorpio Car being used by them," which, along with the alleged recce, substantiated the suspicion of conspiracy.
The appellants argued that the confessional statement of co-accused Dusad was unsubstantiated and not legally admissible to implicate them. "The confessional statement of the co-accused is of no consequence, as it cannot be used as evidence to prove guilt," they asserted.
The Court noted that the trial court had considered all submissions and evidence, including the map recovered, the call detail records, and the forged documents. It stated, "It is evident that the learned trial court, after considering all arguments and having gone through the Case Diary, has found prima facie sufficient material to implicate the appellants..."
Referring to the circumstances, the Division Bench observed, "...sufficient material had been collected by the A.T.S. and it could not be said that the appellants were falsely implicated." The judges acknowledged that the evidence would be assessed in full during trial but held that at the stage of bail, the threshold for prima facie involvement was met.
Regarding the appellants’ defense that they were unaware of the alleged conspiracy, the Court remarked, "They willingly went along with him [co-accused] in his plan and it cannot be said that they were innocent co-travellers."
The Bench further noted that there was a post-arrest message from the Twitter account of Guru Patwant Singh Pannu, threatening the Chief Minister over the arrest of pro-Khalistani youth. While not directly linking the appellants to the tweet, the State referred to this as indicative of the broader context.
The High Court concluded that there were no merits in the appeals. It recorded, "We do not find any merits in the two appeals. Consequently, the appeals and bail applications stand rejected."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Arpit Shukla, Ishan Baghel, Pranshul Tripathi, Umang Rai, Veena Vijayan Rajes
For the Respondent: G.A. (Government Advocate), Shiv Nath Tilhari
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia (As Per F.I.R.) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:18609-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1593 and 1767 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh
[Read/Download order]
