TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Look into police misstatement, High Court directs Jhajjar SP

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 9

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denounced the practice of making misstatement by the police before the court. The admonition came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj of the High Court directed Jhajjar Superintendent of Police (SP) to look into a misstatement before taking apposite steps for preventing repetition.

Wrong Info to HC

The police had conveyed to the HC that all witnesses, except one, had been examined. Later, the state counsel accepted that only four out of 38 witnesses had been examined.

Advertisement

Justice Bhardwaj was hearing a bunch of two petitions seeking regular bail in a double murder case registered on June 26, 2017, under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Arms Act at Sadar Bahadurgarh police station in Jhajjar district.

Justice Bhardwaj was, during the course of hearing, told that a statement was earlier made by the State of Haryana, on instructions that the trial was already underway and 10 out of 35 witnesses had already been examined.

The statement, made during the hearing of an earlier bail plea filed by one of the petitioners, resulted in its dismissal in 2020. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that another statement was made on March 24, during the hearing before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench, that all witnesses except one had been examined.

Appearing before the Bench, the counsel described the statements as false and misleading. The State counsel, too, subsequently accepted that only four out of 38 witnesses had so far been examined. He, at the same time, contended among other things that the petitioners were persons with criminal antecedents involved in multiple cases. As such, there was no occasion or reason for their false implication.

Granting bail to the petitioners after taking into consideration the facts brought to the Court’s notice, Justice Bhardwaj asserted a person’s criminal antecedents would indeed be relevant for consideration while adjudicating an application seeking concession of bail. But, it was not the sole criteria. The attribution to a petitioner in a case under consideration, the link evidence collected by the investigating agency to establish his participation in commission of an offence and its gravity and manner, were relevant circumstances/material required to be kept in mind by the court. Also relevant was the perusal of his custody, the trial’s stage and the possibility of its completion in the near future.

Justice Bhardwaj added: “A misstatement was made on the instructions of police officials, who had come to brief the State counsel. While deprecating such a practice, a direction is also issued to the SP, Jhajjar, to look into the said aspect and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law so that such acts are not repeated.”

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement