Arguments on terrorist Tara’s custody rock court

Aneesha Sareen

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 27

Heated arguments were observed in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Shalini Nagpal when Beant Singh assassin Jagtar Singh Tara was being produced and the police’s appeal seeking his custody came up for hearing.

While the police maintained that the sections of waging war against the country still stand for Tara, the defence argued on the basis of orders passed in 2005 that all accused in the case have been discharged under these sections of waging war. The plea was later dismissed.

The public prosecutor argued that Tara, a proclaimed offender, was arrested in the Burail jailbreak case and their plea for his custody had been wrongly declined.

The police had maintained that the sections of waging war against the country still stand against Tara in the FIR, even though the remaining accused were discharged. Tara was absconding at the time the court had discharged the remaining accused from these sections, the police told the court.

It was further argued that the Magistrate wrongly relied upon the order dated April 4, 2005, of then Additional Sessions Judge Balbir Singh to observe that the offences of waging war against the country were not made out and only offence under Section 224, IPC, was made out.

It was urged when the order was passed, the respondent was not arrested or charge-sheeted and order was operative only qua the accused facing trial at that time.

Defence Counsel AS Chahal argued that last week, the Magistrate passed two orders, one declining the prayer for police remand and the other granting bail. “Prosecution, in its wisdom, challenged only the order declining police remand. Once the bail was granted to the respondent, there was no question of granting any police remand. Referring to the order dated April 11, 2005, of Balbir Singh, then Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, he argued that the order which was maintained by the High Court made it clear that even against the escapee accused (including Tara), a categoric finding was recorded that the offence of waging war against the State was not made out. In the concluding paragraph, the Judge observed that only offence under Sections 224 and 120-B, IPC, was made out against the escapee accused.

Even the trial court had framed charges against co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara under Sections 224 and 120-B, IPC. The order dated April 11, 2005, and of the HC could not be ignored.

The main case of Burail Jailbreak against co-accused was at the fag end and appropriate course for the prosecution was to approach the trial Magistrate and seek permission for further investigation. He made a prayer that revision petition be dismissed.

The public prosecutor again refuted the arguments and prayed while quoting an SC judgment that an order declining prayer for police remand, which would affect the ultimate decision of the case, so it was a final order and revision would be maintainable.