HC notice to three cops on state’s plea for vacating stay

CHANDIGARH: Just about a week after further proceedings were stayed against two former SSPs and a former SHO in pursuance of recommendations made by the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday put them on notice on the state government’s plea for the vacation of the interim order.

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 20

Just about a week after further proceedings were stayed against two former SSPs and a former SHO in pursuance of recommendations made by the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday put them on notice on the state government’s plea for the vacation of the interim order.

Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain also dismissed an application for impleading Capt GS Sidhu as a respondent in the ongoing petition after Advocate-General Atul Nanda vociferously opposed the same. Justice Jain, at the same time, issued notice on another application filed by Sukhraj Singh, whose father Krishan Bhagwan was killed in police firing while he was sitting on a “peaceful dharna”.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, Nanda aggressively sought the vacation of stay on the ground that the investigation in the matter had come to a virtual standstill. Justice Jain, in turn, asserted that the investigation had not been stayed; the order was only with regard to further proceedings.

The petitioners, former SSPs Charanjit Singh and Raghbir Singh Sandhu, along with the then SHO of Bajakhana police station Amarjit Singh, had earlier argued that the first commission set up under Justice Zora Singh could not have been substituted by a second commission.

Their counsel senior advocate Akshay Bhan, along with advocate Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, added the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission went beyond its mandate by involving itself in presumptive adjudicatory process and the commission did not issue notice under Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiries Act, which says that the commission is mandated to give a person reasonable opportunity of being heard during the inquiry and produce evidence in his defence.

In its reply, the government claimed that interim relief had “huge” ramifications and amounted to a blanket stay on further investigation. The government, it was added, was of the opinion that Justice Zora Singh Commission’s report could not be accepted by it. As such, a new commission was set up.