Mohali, April 4 -- A special NIA court in Mohali has rejected the second regular bail application of Harpreet Singh, alias Happy Malaysia, the alleged conspirator of the 2021 Ludhiana District Court blast. Special judge Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa, while dismissing the plea on April 2, held that the stringent bar on bail under Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), squarely applied, and further found that the accused posed a flight risk, possessed the potential to influence witnesses, and could tamper with evidence if released. According to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Happy, 44, a resident of Miadi Kalan in Amritsar, went to Malaysia in 2006, where he came in contact with Pakistan-based arms and narcotics smugglers. The NIA says he acted as a key facilitator between these foreign handlers, particularly Zulfikar, alias Pehalwan, and Changez Khan and an Indian module, which included his cousin Surmukh Singh. According to the prosecution, these networks coordinated the delivery of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) via drone from Pakistan to Punjab on December 14, 2021. The device, investigators say, eventually reached Gagandeep Singh, a dismissed Punjab Police head constable who allegedly planted and handled the explosive that detonated in the Ludhiana court complex on December 23, 2021, killing him and injuring five people. The blast tore through the second floor of the building, damaged court records, and was described by the court as an act carried out to "disrupt law and order and create panic". Happy's counsel argued that he was picked up by Malaysian police on November 15, 2022, and handed over illegally to Indian authorities without a formal extradition process. The defence claimed he was brought to India using an emergency certificate rather than a passport, suggesting coercive custody. The court, however, called this argument a "self-serving plea", pointing out that the record showed his arrest at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, after his arrival from Malaysia. The court said there was no evidence of any extradition and termed the argument a cosmetic change, insufficient to justify a second bail plea. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2024), the court reiterated that under UAPA, bail was the exception and jail was the rule. It held that the allegations against Happy were serious, well-supported by the investigation, and suggested active participation in an international conspiracy. Reviewing the gravity of allegations and the nature of the offence, the court dismissed the bail plea....