HC suspends AAP MLA Naresh Yadav’s sentence

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 4

Less than a week after AAP MLA from Delhi Naresh Yadav was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment in a case alleging outraging of religious feelings, Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the sentence during the pendency of his plea. The direction came as Justice Sindhu observed that the appellate court’s approach, on the face of it, appeared to be unusual and untenable.

“The present application is disposed of and the remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant/petitioners in the present cases is hereby suspended during the pendency of the present petitions. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned,” the court asserted.

Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhri with counsel Hargun Sandhu, contended on his behalf that two appeals against acquittal were sought to be withdrawn. Yet, the appellate court proceeded with the matter, set aside the acquittal and ultimately convicted the petitioner without even realising that the appellants were not willing to pursue the appeals. “In view of the same, prima facie the approach of appellate court seems to be not only unusual; rather untenable in law,” Justice Sindhu asserted, while issuing notice of motion to the respondents.

Before parting with the case, Justice Sindhu observed the senior counsel was not pressing the application for staying the conviction “at this stage” since the matter was fixed for hearing on December 18.

“Seeking the imposition of “severe sentence”, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had submitted before Malerkotla Additional Sessions Judge on November 30 that Yadav was convicted for “heinous” offences under Section 153-A, 295-A and 120-B of the IPC on the allegations of inciting religious feelings, for disturbing communal harmony, and “committing sacrilege of the religious scripture of a particular community”. “No lenient view may be taken while sentencing him”, he had added.