The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Sanjay @ Fauji, the son-in-law of self-styled godman Rampal, in the case arising from the violence at Satlok Ashram, Barwala, in November 2014, during which 111 police personnel were injured while executing arrest warrants issued by the High Court against Baba Rampal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Deepak Manchanda observed that the appellant had undergone incarceration for a period of four years and twenty-one days as of 12 August 2026.

The Court noted that the prosecution had by then examined all 49 material witnesses whose examination had been directed by the Court when it declined the appellant’s earlier bail plea in November 2025. At that time, the Court had recorded that the examination of these witnesses was pending and had directed the State to produce them within four months, granting the appellant liberty to renew his bail application thereafter.

The Bench further recorded that all co-accused, including the main accused, had already been granted bail in the case. This factor was considered significant in the context of the appellant’s prolonged detention.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered in Hisar in 2014 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The prosecution’s case is that when Inspector Anil Kumar and other police officials arrived at the Ashram to execute the arrest warrants, a large gathering of women and children was present outside the gate, while 1,500 to 2,000 youths armed with lathis, dandas, and guns were positioned on the roof. After the warrants were read aloud and Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was announced, individuals carrying containers of diesel and petrol emerged and threatened the police. Subsequently, stones were pelted, the police party was fired upon, and petrol bombs were thrown. A JCB brought by the police was set ablaze, and tear gas and water cannons were used to disperse the crowd.

As a result of the violence, 111 police personnel sustained injuries, including eight with firearm injuries, one with burn injuries, 17 with grievous injuries, and 85 with simple injuries.

During the investigation, it was alleged that a “mini army” was being maintained at the Ashram for the execution of illegal acts, and that the appellant, an ex-serviceman, had imparted training in the use of arms and lathis to its members, with weapons kept under his supervision at the Ashram.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, had declined bail to the appellant on 15 April 2026. An earlier appeal filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the High Court on 17 November 2025.

In dismissing that earlier bail application, the Court had noted that 49 material witnesses, including doctors and Tehsildars, were yet to be examined. Given the appellant’s relationship as the son-in-law of Baba Rampal, who has a large following in Haryana, the Court had expressed concern that these witnesses could be influenced if the appellant were released. However, it directed the State to produce all material witnesses within four months and allowed the appellant to renew his bail plea after compliance.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai submitted that the incident occurred approximately eleven years prior, that of the 942 accused named in the FIR, 940 had already been granted bail, and that of the 148 individuals charged under the UAPA, 146 were on bail. He further contended that the appellant’s implication rested on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible as evidence.

Ghai also highlighted that the grant of regular bail to Baba Rampal himself on 8 April 2026 constituted a material change in circumstances, and that with all 49 material witnesses having since been examined, the grounds for continued detention no longer prevailed. He added that the trial, involving 425 cited witnesses, was likely to be protracted.

Opposing the bail application, the State submitted that the appellant was a main accused who had trained followers in the use of weapons and actively participated in the firing and throwing of petrol bombs. It was stated that the appellant had absconded for seven and a half years, was declared a proclaimed offender, and was arrested only on 16 July 2021. The State further noted that his acquittal in a separate proclaimed-offender FIR had been on the technical ground that it was based on a police report rather than a complaint, and relied on the embargo under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.

The Court recorded that, as of the date of the hearing, 65 of the 425 witnesses had been examined, including all 49 material witnesses whose examination had been previously directed.

After considering the submissions, the Division Bench concluded that the appellant had served a substantial period of incarceration, that the procedural direction regarding witness examination had been fulfilled, and that the co-accused were already on bail. Accordingly, regular bail was granted to Sanjay @ Fauji, subject to the usual conditions and furnishing of the required surety.