Jarnail Singh Bajwa case: HC unconvinced with state reply, adds PGIMER as respondent

Less than a fortnight after the Punjab and Haryana High Court took note of allegations that Jarnail Singh Bajwa — a prominent real estate developer — was “wandering freely”, operating from a hotel and meeting clients, the Bench today made PGIMER a party to the ongoing litigation through its director.

The direction came after Justice Sandeep Moudgil raised questions on the state’s explanation regarding a stopover at a hotel during Bajwa’s medical transit and expressed amazement regarding the number of dates given for conducting his surgery.

At the onset, the state counsel informed the Bench that an inquiry was underway into the allegations that Bajwa was made to visit a hotel near Kurali on Chandigarh-Ropar road on June 14. Justice Moudgil observed that the state made an attempt to clarify the matter by informing the Bench that the incident happened during Bajwa’s transit from Ropar Civil Hospital to PGIMER for treatment.

“But this court is not at all convinced with the reply of the state wherein it has failed to mention as upon whose recommendation respondent Bajwa was advised to visit PGIMER, Chandigarh, while being admitted to Civil Hospital, Ropar,” Justice Moudgil added.

The Bench added it was further “amazed” to learn from state counsel regarding “the number of dates given by the Cardiologist Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh, for conducting surgery upon respondent Bajwa. In that eventuality, PGIMER through Director is added to the memo of parties as a respondent,” the court added

Fixing July 24 as the next date of hearing in the matter, Justice Moudgil directed Mohali Senior Superintendent of Police to file a detailed status report on the investigation conducted so far in the matter. The Bench was hearing a protection plea filed on the ground that the petitioner was “not only pursuing his own case, but also been assisting other complainants in legal proceedings against Bajwa.

The petitioner had added that Bajwa, purportedly hospitalised for treatment since March, was allegedly using mobiles and was seen issuing cheques. The petitioner had also placed before the Bench the details of the mobile numbers allegedly used by Bajwa while in jail. He also provided information regarding several cheques issued by him as “part of compromise/settlements with certain complainants in various cases”, adding these were subsequently dishonoured.

The Bench then observed that the accusations “raise fingers directly on the discipline force” and ordered the state to submit the complete footage from the hospital, including reception and areas around his designated bed or ward.

Justice Moudgil also directed Ropar Superintendent of Jail to file a detailed affidavit listing all inmates currently housed in the jail and disclose how many of them — particularly those with similar or more serious medical ailments — had been allowed extended stays in hospitals like Bajwa.

The judge observed that the documents and photographs placed on record prima facie established the complicity of jail and hospital officials, and pointed to “obvious reasons” behind the apparent indulgence shown to the accused.