Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to teacher ‘implicated’ on political grounds

Advertisement

Chandigarh, April 11

More than a year after an ETT teacher was allegedly implicated for “clarifying certain information” sought by the Aam Aadmi Party candidate’s husband, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to him and another person. The matter was brought to Justice Vikas Bahl’s notice after two petitions were filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by teacher Varinderjit Singh and Harpreet Singh through senior advocate Sunil Chadha with Lakshay Bector and DS Gandhi.

Justice Bahl asserted it was not in dispute that both the petitioners were not involved in any other matter. It was Varinderjit Singh’s case that he and his wife were government teachers. The averments in the petition made it apparent that Varinderjit Singh was deputed as a booth-level officer during an earlier election.

He was aware regarding the electorate of the area by the virtue being a government teacher and had clarified certain information sought by the candidate’s husband following which the then ruling party members got annoyed and falsely implicated the petitioners.

The Bench was also told that the petitioner was shown to have been arrested on February 13, 2021, at 10.30 pm from Dubarji Link Road in Amritsar. The CCTV footage, on the other hand, clearly showed that he was illegally picked up that day at 8.10 pm from the parking compound of Best Price, Amritsar.

Justice Bahl noted that a coordinate Bench, during the course of hearing, asked the Amritsar District and Sessions Judge to see the CCTV footage on the picking up of the petitioners. The Sessions Judge, in the report, observed the faces of the persons could not be seen “very clearly” as the footage was in black and white. But it was noticed in the report that movement of some persons was seen at about 8:08 pm in the parking compound of Best Price. Justice Bahl added the senior counsel for the petitioners underscored the fact that the same was in consonance with the averments made in the petition. Although the report did not conclusively prove the petitioner’s averments, it did raise some arguable points in the petitioners’ favour.

Referring to the argument regarding the recovery of contraband from a “transparent polythene envelope”, Justice Bahl added: “It has been repeatedly held by various coordinate Benches of this court that it is highly unlikely for a person who intends to commit an offence with respect to contraband, to carry the same in a transparent polythene bag”.

Allowing the pleas, Justice Bahl said both the petitioners had been in custody for more than a year, were not involved in any other case and did not had a criminal background.