Farmer leader Dallewal not in police custody, family can meet him: Punjab to HC

The Punjab Government on Monday told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal was not in police custody and was “free.”

The leader of the joint forum “Sanyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) KMM” had been admitted to a hospital in Patiala on his own wish. Taking note, Justice Manisha Batra directed the State to ensure his family could meet him within the hospital premises without any hindrance.

At the outset, the State counsel submitted that Dallewal had opted for hospitalisation and was free to leave. “He can go. He himself preferred the hospital,” he said, adding that the family could meet him subject to security protocols. Citing Supreme Court orders, he emphasised that the State was responsible for his medical care.

Dallewal’s counsel, however, contended that authorities were not allowing his family to visit him. “He is not even having water, and they are not permitting a single person to see him,” he submitted.

After hearing both sides, Justice Batra observed in open court: “The State counsel submits that the petitioner is not in police custody, either illegal or valid. He has been admitted to Park Hospital, Patiala, on his own wish, considering his health. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the family is being denied access. In view of this, the respondents are directed to make arrangements for the family to meet him in the hospital premises.”

The developments took place on a habeas corpus petition seeking Dallewal’s release. Represented by advocates Gurmohan Preet Singh, Angrej Singh and Kanwarjit Singh, the petitioner-farmer leader Gurmukh Singh had contended that Dallewal was allegedly in illegal custody by the respondents.

“The detention appears to be an attempt to suppress the farmers’ movement and instil fear among peaceful protesters, violating the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, and association under Article 19 of the Constitution”, the petitioner had contended.