New Delhi, December 8
The Supreme Court today directed the Special Court at Ropar to dispose of the bail petitions of former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal in the disproportionate assets case tomorrow or as early as possible.
The direction was issued by a Bench comprising Mr Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Mr Justice B P Singh, while keeping separate petitions by the Badals for bail and transfer of their case outside Punjab.
Posting further hearing on their petitions to December 12, the Bench said: “We don’t want to take cognizance of the petitions when the matter is pending before the trial court.”
The apex court further said it would wait for the order of the special court, which had on Friday adjourned hearing till December 9 on their applications for the grant of regular bail.
“We direct the special judge to dispose of the matter either tomorrow or as early as possible and these petitions are till then kept pending,” the Bench in its order said.
Earlier, during brief arguments on the special leave petition SLP, for bail by the Badals, the court questioned their counsel why they had moved the apex court even before the trial court’s decision on their bail applications.
He said the Badals had to do so because the special judge had passed an “erroneous” order holding that he had no power to grant interim bail when applications for regular bail by the accused persons were pending before him and remanded them in judicial custody.
“This is wrong interpretation of law. The (trial) court is competent to grant interim bail even when application of an accused for regular bail is pending before it,” the counsel said.
When the court asked him why his clients had not moved an application for anticipatory bail when they apprehended arrest, he said since the FIR was registered against the father and the son on June 24, the police had
not
found it necessary to arrest them as they had cooperated with the investigating agencies. As the chargesheet had been filed in the case and “investigation is complete”, there was no reason for filing application for anticipatory bail, he contended.To a query as to why the SLP for bail should not be disposed of in view of the fact that the trial court had yet to take a decision on the grant of bail, he said it should be kept pending because an important question of law had arisen — whether the trial judge had power to grant interim bail — when an application for regular bail by an accused was pending before
him. This issue had to be decided, and, therefore, the petition should be kept pending, he said. A senior advocate, appearing for the Punjab Government said the judicial remand to the Badals was not merely ordered by the trial court on the rejection of their plea for interim bail but also because the police had moved an application for their judicial remand.
