HC slams Punjab for proceeding with bail plea in 'leisurely fashion'

Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 16

In a major embarrassment to the state of Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has literally rapped it for “the leisurely fashion in which it is choosing to proceed with the prosecution” in a case registered under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Appellant can’t be kept in custody

Over two-and-a-half years have gone by since the appellant’s detention and on account of the fact that for want of sanction, the court is not liable to take cognisance, no useful purpose will be served to keep appellant in custody. — Bench

The assertion came as a Division Bench granted bail to an accused after making it clear that the state was entirely responsible for the grant of benefit to the appellant. In his appeal filed through counsel Arnav Sood, the accused had challenged the dismissal of his third bail application by the Amritsar Special Court on July 28 in the FIR registered on June 6, 2020, at the Chatiwind police station.

The FIR was lodged initially under Section 295 of the IPC after receiving secret information that the appellant and another person had said, among other things, the heads of the people belonging to a community should be chopped and they should be expelled from the state. Later, the persons were apprehended.

The Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan observed the appellant was arrested on June 6, 2020. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, while the second plea was dismissed on July 29, 2020. The appellant filed another plea before the HC. It was dismissed by a single judge on October 16, 2020, while noticing that the appeal was to be heard by a Division Bench.

It was noticed that the challan had been presented and the trial’s conclusion would take long. Keeping in view the allegations in the FIR, the bail application was, however, dismissed in the absence of fresh reasons. The Bench asserted the matter could not be allowed to rest there following apparent violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Union of India versus KA Najeeb’, especially in view of the leisurely fashion in which the state chose to proceed.