Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to farm activist Navdeep Singh, cites false implications in multiple cases

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 16
In a major embarrassment for the State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court asserted it had sufficient reasons to infer that Navdeep Singh was being falsely dragged in multiple cases. The assertion came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil granted bail to the farm activist.

Navdeep Singh, along with other farmers, had allegedly assembled at the Shambu border during the enforcement of prohibitory order under Section 144 of the CrPC. It was alleged that they, in connivance with each other, tried to break the barricades set up by the police officials and attacked them.

The matter was placed before Justice Moudgil’s Bench after Navdeep Singh sought regular bail in the FIR registered on February 13 for attempt to murder and other offences under Sections 147, 149, 186, 188, 307, 332 and 352 of the IPC, along with the provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the National Highway Act, at Ambala Sadar police station.

Justice Moudgil asserted the petitioner’s own case was that he was involved in as many as 15 more cases, out of which he stood acquitted in six. In three cases, the investigation was still on. All the cases were on the same lines, apparently registered within close proximity on the same set of allegations.

“Moreover, all the cases have been registered in Ambala district only, which is sufficient for this court to infer that the petitioner is being dragged in all those cases falsely. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail,” Justice Moudgil asserted.

In his detailed order, Justice Moudgil asserted the investigation was complete and the challan stood presented on May 20. The petitioner had already suffered sufficient period in custody – three months and 15 days. Besides this, a co-accused had also been granted bail by the lower court. As such, the court did not find any reason to deny the petitioner the concession of bail.

“As per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered as guilty till the guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the trial is likely to take long time in the light of the fact that out of 52 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is against the principle ‘bail is a rule, jail is an exception’,” Justice Moudgil concluded.