Mohali, July 11 -- A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mohali has dismissed the bail applications of three accused allegedly linked to banned outfit Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) in a terror conspiracy case involving the promotion of the "Khalistan referendum 2020" campaign. Special judge Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa rejected regular bail applications of Jatinder Singh alias Goldy of Tarn Taran, Roofal alias Rahul Gill of Gurdaspur, and Sukhraj Singh alias Raju of Amritsar in a case originally registered at an Amritsar police station and later re-registered by NIA. The case pertains to allegations of sedition, criminal conspiracy, offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Arms Act. According to the prosecution, Amritsar police had arrested Sukhraj Singh and co-accused Malkeet Singh on October 19, 2018, while they were allegedly putting up banners glorifying pro-Khalistan slogans on the Kot Mit Singh flyover. During the investigation, several other accused, including Jatinder Singh and Roofal, were arrested. The NIA later took over the probe in April 2020. The agency alleged that the accused were members of a terrorist gang formed by SFJ chief Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to promote the secessionist campaign "Punjab referendum 2020." It alleged that Jatinder Singh was involved in burning liquor shops and was planning to undergo arms training in Pakistan, while Roofal was part of a conspiracy to execute target killings and was found with a country-made pistol and cartridges. Sukhraj Singh allegedly painted pro-Khalistan slogans at public places, participated in burning liquor shops and received nearly Rs.2.99 lakh from abroad through money transfer channels. The defence argued that the accused had been falsely implicated, that the prosecution relied mainly on disclosure statements, and that they had remained in custody for over seven years while the trial progressed slowly. They also cited the grant of bail to some co-accused as a changed circumstance. Opposing the pleas, the NIA submitted that there was sufficient material showing involvement of accused in terrorist activities and that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA barred their release on bail as a prima facie case existed against them. The court held that applicants had failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances since their earlier bail pleas had been rejected. It observed that existence of a prima facie case under UAPA, coupled with the gravity of the allegations, prevented the grant of bail....