Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Under UAPA For Supplying Weapons To 'Bambiha' Gang, Says Arrest Not Illegal

A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that a huge cache of arms and ammunition was recovered from the accused's house.

The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by Lakhveer Singh against rejection of his bail by the Sessions Court.

Singh is booked under Sections 18 (conspiracy), 18B (recruiting for terrorist act) and 20 (being member of terrorist gang) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 among other charges.

As per the National Investigating Agency, an alleged conspiracy was hatched by the members of a criminal syndicate to carry out terrorist acts in Delhi and other parts of the country by executing targeted killings using lethal firearms and explosives.

It is alleged that the Appellant was active in procuring and supplying illegal weapons and vehicles to the Bambiha gang for execution of the conspiracy.

The NIA conducted a raid in his house in February 2023, statedly recovering illegal weapons, empty magazines and ammunitions. Accordingly, a Chargesheet was filed in the matter in August that year.

Seeking bail, the Appellant argued that his arrest was vitiated since he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest. Further, it was contended that the Trial Court failed to discuss how the mere possession of weapons is an offence under UAPA and there is neither evidence that these weapons were used in the commission of any terrorist act.

The High Court however noted that the Appellant was provided with the Arrest Memo at the time of his arrest.

“Further, this Arrest Memo, which bears the signature of the Appellant, also contains a question as to whether the grounds of arrest have been explained, if possible, in his mother tongue to the accused. The answer to this question has been written as “yes”,” it noted.

The Court further pointed out that immediately on the next day, the Appellant was produced before the Trial Court which granted police custody.

Therefore, it held that the arrest was not illegal. Further, it said,

“The instance of recovery of large arms and ammunition from the house of the Appellant, the corroboration thereof by the prosecution witnesses and the failure of the Appellant to accord any valid explanation for their presence, gives this Court sufficient reasons to believe that a prima facie case is made out against the Appellant.”

Even otherwise, the Court added, it does not have the power to question the investigative findings of the NIA at this stage, where the trial is yet to begin. "It is trite law that the Court while examining the issue of prima facie case as required under sub-section (5) of Section 43D, is not expected to hold a mini trial."

As such, it refused bail.

Appearance: Ms. Tanu Bedi, Mr. Mayank Tripathi, Mr. Naresh Jain, Mr. Vijay Shukla, Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Ms. Ambika Singh, Mr. Akshat Shukla, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP for NIA with Mr. Jatin, Mr. Amit Rohila and Mr. Mathew M. Phillip, Advocates; Mr. Sanjeev CIO, NIA (DSP)

Case title: Lakhveer Singh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

Case no.: CRL.A. 471/2025

Click here to read order