Ropar, December 3
Arguments on the bail applications of Mr Parkash Singh Badal and his MP son Sukhbir Badal remained inconclusive today.
After hearing their counsel for three hours on jurisdiction and absence of sanction, besides other issues, a court here fixed December 5 the next date for hearing the case.
The court observed that orders would be passed on the applications on the next date. The court also directed the Superintendent of Patiala’s Central Jail to act in accordance with the jail manual on an application filed on behalf of Mr Badal seeking directions for permitting his relatives to meet him.
In an application, the counsel alleged on Mr Badal’s behalf that MLA Manpreet Badal, along with several other Members of Parliament had gone to meet the Badals during visiting hours, but were not permitted by the jail authorities. The authorities claimed that just one person was permitted to meet them and that also on Tuesdays and Fridays, the counsel asserted. This the counsel added, was against the jail manual.
The court, on December 1, declined their plea for interim bail. As the court took up the case at 2 pm today, nearly 500 Akali workers waited for the verdict in the court complex.
They had reached the venue this morning in tractors and cars. Bottlenecks were created all along the road leading to the court complex.
The workers were led by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) President Gurcharan Singh Tohra, former Minister Mahesh Inder Singh and Mr Manpreet Badal.
As they came out of the courtroom at 5 pm after the case was adjourned, lawyers, supporters rushed forward to know the decision. They raised slogans in favour of the SAD and against the government. The cops maintained a safe distance.
Earlier during the day, Punjab’s former Advocate-General Hardev Singh Mattewal, arguing for the Badals, asserted that the court at Ropar was debarred from taking cognizance of the case in the absence of proper sanction. The Governor, and not the Speaker, was the competent sanctioning authority.
He submitted that Mr Parkash Singh Badal was not an ordinary MLA, but leader of the Opposition with the
status of a Cabinet Minister. He was next to the Chief Minister. As such, the sanction accorded by the Speaker was “void”. The court, he contended, could take notice of the sanction’s absence at any stage before the framing up of charges. Otherwise also, the Speaker was a Congress man, he asserted.Describing the chargesheet against the Badals as “political challan”, Mr Mattewal added that case had been initiated for creating defence in a complaint case filed by them against Punjab’s Chief Minister Amarinder Singh. He also claimed that the Lok Pal had received not even a single complaint against Mr Badal during his tenure as Chief Minister and even after.
Regarding the question of jurisdiction, Mr Mattewal asserted that only courts at Chandigarh could try the offences referred to in the first information report. Agriculture Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal’s case was ordered to be transferred to Chandigarh on the same ground. The order was not even questioned by the state
The complainant in the case, Mr Balwant Singh, had been “duly rewarded for signing the complaint with the Directorship of the Punjab State Land Development Corporation”.
The applicants, Mr Baldev Singh added, were not required for interrogation or investigation as the charge sheet had already been filed. The applicants were not arrested throughout the investigation.
Former Additional Advocate-General Gurminder Singh, former Deputy Advocate-General H.S. Sidhu and advocate N.S. Minhas were also present during the proceedings.
