Post Top Ad


Wednesday, 19 August 2020

Explain rulings, Punjab and Haryana High Court tells Additional District Sessions Judge

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for an explanation from an Additional District and Sessions Judge, who granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused even after being told about his alleged doubtful antecedents.

The Judge has also been asked to explain the reasons for refusing pre-arrest bail to another accused on a subsequent occasion.

"The explanation be submitted through the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, to this court on or before the next date of hearing," stated Justice GS Sandhawalia of the High Court. The matter was brought to the High Court's notice after Shehjad filed a petition against Haryana for anticipatory bail in a case of attempt to murder, assault or criminal force to deter a public servant and other offences registered at the Sohna police station in Gurugram on May 23.

Appearing before the Bench through video-conferencing, his counsel contended that similarly situated accused Sahun was granted interim protection on June 26.

It was brought to the High Court's notice that the person had three other criminal cases of similar nature pending against him, but his "interim protection was made absolute" on July 22 by rejecting the state's stand that the accused had not cooperated with the investigating agency.

Taking note of the arguments, Justice Sandhawalia observed that the petitioner was questioning why interim protection had been declined to him on the grounds that he was the principal accused and recovery of certain things was to be effected from him.

Issuing notice of motion for September 2, Justice Sandhawalia directed the filing of a status report on the "number of cases of similar nature which are pending against the petitioner and his co-accused".

Before parting with the case, Justice Sandhawalia asserted, "The presiding officer concerned shall also give his explanation as to what weighed with him to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co-accused on an earlier occasion though it had come to his notice that the antecedents of the accused were doubtful and the reasons for declining the benefit on a subsequent occasion."

from The Tribune

No comments:

Post a comment