The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to two individuals alleged to be members of the banned organisation 'Sikhs for Justice' (SFJ) and Khalistani sympathisers, who were arrested in January 2024 for allegedly conducting a reconnaissance (recce) of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya ahead of the Pran Pratishtha (Consecration) ceremony.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh upheld the trial court's order denying bail, observing that prima facie material on record indicated the accused had planned to disturb public order on January 22, 2024—the day of the consecration ceremony at the Lord Ram Temple.

The accused—Pradeep Kumar alias Pradeep Poonia and Ajit Kumar Sharma—were arrested on January 19, 2024, by the Uttar Pradesh Police Anti-Terrorist Squad. They were booked under Sections 121A, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the ATS, acting on instructions from SFJ leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, co-accused Shankar Lal Dusad, along with the present appellants, forged vehicle registration documents for a white Scorpio car in Rajasthan. The trio then allegedly travelled to Ayodhya on January 17, 2024, with the intent to conduct a recce of the temple premises and display Khalistani flags during the consecration ceremony.

The appellants’ counsel contended that the accused were devotees of Lord Ram who had travelled to Ayodhya to attend the Pran Pratishtha ceremony. It was submitted that they were merely searching for affordable accommodation and had not yet checked in to any Dharamshala when they were detained.

It was further argued that no incriminating material had been recovered from the accused, and their Aadhar and Voter ID cards were found to be genuine. The counsel also pointed out that none of the individuals alleged to be associated with SFJ or labelled as Khalistani terrorists had been made co-accused alongside the appellants.

Opposing the bail pleas, Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Shiv Nath Tilhari reiterated the prosecution’s claim that the accused were in close and continuous contact with co-accused Dusad. It was highlighted that shortly after the arrests, a threatening message was posted from Pannu’s Twitter account, targeting the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and referring to the detention of two "pro-Khalistani youth" in Ayodhya.

The AGA further submitted that the appellants' failure to alert authorities about Dusad’s alleged plans casts doubt on their claims of innocence and points towards a shared criminal intent.

The High Court noted that the trial court had reasonably applied its mind while denying bail, and its findings could not be said to be implausible or perverse. Dismissing the appeals, the Bench remarked:

"It cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court could not have been arrived at by a reasonable and prudent person with sufficient knowledge of law."

Case Details
Title: Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia (As Per F.I.R.) vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Appellants: Senior Advocate I.B. Singh with Umang Rai, Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Arpit Shukla, Ishan Baghel, Pranshul Tripathi, Veena Vijayan Rajes