Fugitive Khalistan Commando Force Operative, Arrested After 31 Years, Granted Bail In 1993 Arms Act Case: Allahabad HC

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a 1993 Arms Act case, holding that he had not ‘deliberately absconded’ despite being arrested afresh on a non-bailable warrant, since the earlier lapse arose from the record being misplaced after the concerned Police Station's jurisdiction was reorganised.

The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal was hearing a bail application filed by Sukhwinder Singh @ Dhillo @ Dayal Singh @ Rakesh Sharma @ Chhidda, seeking bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 1993, registered under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Noida Sector 20 (erstwhile District Ghaziabad), during the pendency of trial.

The applicant is the same Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon who was arrested earlier this year by a joint team of the U.P. Anti-Terrorism Squad and Gautam Budh Nagar Police from Mohali, after remaining a fugitive for nearly 31 years in connection with his alleged links to the banned outfit Khalistan Commando Force. He had originally been arrested in the present Arms Act case in 1993 upon recovery of an AK-56 rifle and cartridges, granted bail in December 1993, and had then gone absconding from August 1995 onward, prompting the non-bailable warrant that led to his re-arrest on 18.2.2026.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was earlier on bail in the case but was arrested afresh on 18.2.2026 pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued against him. It was argued that the applicant had not deliberately absconded, and that the record had been misplaced on account of the concerned Police Station now falling within the jurisdiction of Noida, even though the trial itself continued to be pending before the Court at Ghaziabad. It was further submitted that the applicant had no criminal history, had been in jail since 19.2.2026, and was ready to cooperate with the trial without misusing the liberty of bail if released.

The A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application, though the Court noted that the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant could not be disputed.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the fact that the applicant had not misused the earlier opportunity of bail nor deliberately absconded, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, held that a prima facie case for bail was made out.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application, directing that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, and subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court as required. Breach of any condition was made a ground for cancellation of bail. The Court clarified that its observations while granting bail would not affect the trial Judge's independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.

Appearances:

Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Rahul Tanguria, holding brief for Sri Ashutosh Jaiswal. Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A.

Case Title: Sukhwinder Singh @ Dhillo @ Dayal Singh @ Rakesh Sharma @ Chhidda v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17897 of 2026