The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to an accused allegedly involved in hurling a hand grenade at a YouTuber’s residence in Jalandhar at the “instance of a Pakistan-based rival”. The Bench held that the use of such an explosive “makes the offence heinous” and creates “an environment of terrorism, fear and insecurity amongst the people.”Dismissing the appeal filed by Hardik Kamboj against the rejection of bail, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the accused could not claim relief even on the ground of custody of about one year, particularly in view of his criminal antecedentsReferring to the prosecution case set up by the NIA, the court noted that the appellant on the intervening night of March 15/16, 2025, was allegedly taken by co-accused outside the house of complainant Navdeep Singh alias Roger Sandhu, where he threw a hand grenade towards the balcony, though it did not explode.Counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence was based on police secret reports and there was no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the throwing of the hand grenade. Moreover, it was not established that the object thrown was a hand grenade. He further submitted only a motorcycle was recovered.The State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the bail on the grounds that using a hand grenade as a weapon and throwing it at someone would reflect a failure of the law and order system, if taken lightly. It was not a case where bail should be granted, in the State’s opinion.Referring to reply filed by the State counsel, the Bench asserted its perusal pointed out that the “appellant was one of the primary accused, who had allegedly thrown the hand grenade”.The court added the appellant had a criminal history. “It is not a case in which this Court should neutrally scrutinise the evidence regarding its admissibility here in such a case when the hand grenade was thrown on the house of a YouTube influencer at the instance of a Pakistan based rival,” the Court observed.The Bench added the usage of a hand grenade itself made the offense heinous, creating an environment of terrorism, fear, and insecurity amongst the people. As such, the applicant was not entitled to bail. “Further perusal of the impugned order vide which bail was rejected does not suffer from any infirmity and calls for no interference,” the Bench added.An FIR in the matter was registered on March 16, 2025, at a police station in Jalandhar, under provisions relating to explosives, arms, and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The appeal before the High Court arose from the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.