High Court refuses anticipatory bail in Batala slogan case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined anticipatory bail to an accused, who allegedly inscribed anti-national slogans on the walls near a college in Batala after observing that custodial interrogation is a “valuable right” of the investigating agency which cannot be denied in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Surya Partap Singh held that denial of custodial interrogation at this stage would hamper the investigation and that the gravity of the allegations disentitled the petitioner from the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

The Bench was told that the FIR was registered on a police official’s report, who informed the SHO of Batala police station in Gurdaspur district that a reliable source had tipped him off about alleged links of Gurpatwant Singh Pannu—described as heading the organisation “Sikh for Justice” and presently residing overseas—with several persons in Punjab.

It was alleged that Pannu behind an incident that occurred the same day, when slogans were written on the walls near the college main gate. The slogans allegedly read, “Punjab is not a part of India.” The report further stated that derogatory remarks were made against the Home Minister of India, the Chief Minister of Punjab and the DGP.

After perusing the record, Justice Surya Partap Singh: “A perusal of record shows that in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that he was responsible for inscribing the slogans which by any standard cannot be said to be a mere expression of views, within the prescribed limits meant for enjoying the freedom of speech.”

The court further recorded that the petitioner’s presence had been captured in CCTV footage and rejected the argument that the case rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. “There are very specific allegations that the presence of petitioner has been recorded in the CCTV footage and thus, this argument of counsel for the petitioner does not hold good that except the disclosure statement of the co-accused there is no other legally admissible evidence against the petitioner.”

On the issue of anticipatory bail, Justice Surya Partap Singh emphasised the significance of custodial interrogation: “The right of custodial interrogation of an accused is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency and unless extraordinary circumstance exists such right should not be denied to the Investigating Agency.”

Holding that no exceptional circumstance existed in the case, the Court concluded: “As in the instant case, the denial of right of custodial interrogation to the investigating agency would hamper the investigation, and also considering the gravity of offence, it is hereby held that no exceptional circumstance exists in the present case to render the petitioner eligible for the benefit of anticipatory bail. Thus, it is hereby held that the instant petition for anticipatory bail is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly.”