Jagtar Singh Johal, Accused Of Funding Khalistan Liberation Force, Denied Bail By Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail plea of ​​Jagtar Singh Johal, accused of funding Khalistan liberation force. Denying the bail to Johal, the court said that he knows all the other conspirators in the case and is also involved in the funding activities.

Jagtar Singh Johal is a UK resident who is accused of being involved in several murders and funding the Khalistan liberation force. He was arrested by Punjab police in 2017.

A bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the appeals filed by Johal against the trial court orders denying him the relief in seven cases being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in relation to a series of alleged targeted killings and attempts to kill in Ludhiana and Jalandhar districts of Punjab in 2016-2017.

The probe was transferred from the Punjab Police to the NIA after it was "identified" that the offences were part of a "transnational conspiracy that intended to destabilise the law-and-order situation" in the state, the court noted.

Opposing the pleas, the NIA claimed that Johal, who was arrested in November 2017, was "highly radicalised" and an "active member" of the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF).

It was alleged that being one of the main conspirators, the accused provided funds that were used for the procurement of arms and weapons by two shooters.

The bench, also comprising Justice Amit Sharma, dismissed five appeals for being filed beyond the permissible period under the law. The appeals in the other two cases were dismissed by the bench on merit.

These two cases pertained to the alleged killing of one Amit Sharma, the president of the Shri Hindu Takhat, in Ludhiana in January 2017, and the alleged attempt to kill in Jalandhar Jagdish Kumar Gagneja, the RSS vice-president in Punjab , in August 2016.

The court emphasised that terror activities with "trans-national links" fall in a "more serious and grave category" of cases and all offences covered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be treated equally.

The court held that at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant is "not an innocent person" and is "prima facie associated with the KLF", thus attracting the bar on grant of bail under the provisions of the UAPA.

With inputs from PTI