Consider defence objections before evaluating police remand request: HC to magistrate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Saturday directed the magistrate concerned to consider defence objections before assessing whether case was made out for police remand of Kanchanpreet Kaur, the daughter of SAD’s Tarn Taran bypoll candidate Sukhwinder Kaur Randhawa.

Acting on a habeas corpus petition alleging the detainee’s arrest “in a due deliberated manner by throttling the settled provisions of law”, Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj directed the magistrate “to take into consideration the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner before taking any decision on the remand of the alleged detainee sought by the State and would decide the same, whether it is a fit case for granting police remand or not”.

The direction came after petitioner advocate and SAD spokesperson Arshdeep Singh Kler contended that Kanchanpreet Kaur was implicated and granted interim bail in four FIRs, including a case registered on November 8. After she joined investigation on November 28 in that case, she was “clandestinely” nominated as an accused the same day in another FIR dated November 11 and “offence under Section 111 of the BNS (dealing with organised crime) was added only to rope her in a false case”.

Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, counsel D. S. Sobti and Sultan Singh Sangha submitted that offence under the provision was not out. “An offence under Section 111 can be invoked only in the situation if the accused is prosecuted in at least two cognizable cases and the court had taken cognizance of the same as well”. The counsel added the detainee was arrested by the investigating agencies on November 28 evening to “divest her of availing legal remedies” by adding offence under Section 111.

Appearing on the state’s behalf, Additional Advocate-General Chanchal K. Singla, opposed the plea and maintained that the addition of Section 111 was justified. “Complicity of the alleged detainee surfaced as her husband, Amritpal Singh Baath, was involved in 23 FIRs and she, being his wife, was in connivance with him. Thus, offence under Section 111 of BNS had rightly been added”

The state also submitted that the detenue would be produced before the magistrate within the statutory 24-hour period.

After hearing counsel for the parties, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “It is deciphered that the alleged detainee, Kanchanpreet Kaur, was nominated in FIR No.208 dated November 11by incorporating offence under Section 111 BNS. As submitted before this Court by the State counsel, the alleged detenue is to be produced before the learned Magistrate concerned today itself”.

The court then directed the magistrate to first consider the objections. Since counsel Sobti informed the court that he would personally appear before the magistrate by 8 pm to argue the case, the High Court directed that Kanchanpreet be kept in court custody until then to ensure the defence was heard before any remand order. The state was asked to file a status report before the next date of hearing on December 5.