DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Punjab and Haryana High Court reserves order on farmer leader Dallewal’s release

The state insisted he was not in police custody and had voluntarily opted for hospitalisation, while the petitioner’s counsel argued to the contrary and sought a warrant officer’s appointment to record Dallewal’s statement
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal. File photo
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday reserved its order on a habeas corpus plea seeking farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal’s release, as arguments and counterarguments continued over whether he was in police custody. The state insisted he was not in custody and had voluntarily opted for hospitalisation, while the petitioner’s counsel argued to the contrary and sought a warrant officer’s appointment to record Dallewal’s statement.

Appearing before Justice Manisha Batra’s bench, the petitioner’s counsel alleged that farmer leaders who attempted to meet Dallewal were detained, a claim the state counsel strongly refuted. Citing Supreme Court orders, he emphasised that the state was responsible for his medical care.

As both sides maintained their positions, Justice Batra fixed the matter for orders on Thursday as after hearing rival contentions. The leader of the joint forum “Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political)” was earlier admitted to a hospital in Patiala about three days back.

Advertisement

Represented by advocates Gurmohan Preet Singh, Angrej Singh and Kanwarjit Singh, the petitioner-farmer leader Gurmukh Singh had earlier 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.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper