Punjab and Haryana HC stays arrest of former AAP leader Kumar Vishwas

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 2

In a major embarrassment for the Punjab Government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday asserted former AAP leader and poet Kumar Vishwas’s contentions that the FIR against him was “politically motivated” could not be ruled out. The assertion came as Justice Anoop Chitkara stayed further proceedings with regard to Vishwas, including his arrest.

Vishwas had moved the High Court for quashing the FIR registered on April 12 against him. Senior advocates R.S. Rai and Chetan Mittal on his behalf contended the petitioner was accused of giving provocative statements against AAP’s national convener Arvind Kejriwal in interviews from February 16 to February 19 alleging his involvement “with certain nefarious and anti-social elements”.

It was further alleged that the statements subjected AAP leaders and workers to violence. On April 12, 10-12 unknown persons restrained, waylaid, tried to assault and manhandled the complainant and others by pushing them into a corner. The FIR was registered within two hours of receiving the complaint apparently without preliminary inquiry or investigation to confirm the veracity of the allegations.

Justice Chitkara asserted: “The penal provisions under which the petitioner stands arraigned are not prima facie made out against him. The submission that the FIR is politically motivated cannot be ruled out. Even if all the allegations made in the complaint and the prompt investigation, which has covered almost all aspects, are hypothetically believed as gospel truth, still prima facie the evidence collected does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence qua the petitioner”.

Justice Chitkara added the filing of the complaint, naming the petitioner as the principal accused, did not appear to have been done to seek action against a legal injury. The complainant clubbed the incident occurring at a different place under a different scenario on a much earlier date with the April 12 incident at Panjola in Ropar district.

The lack of proximity between the two and the fact that the petitioner was indisputably not one of the 10-12 unknown persons could not be ignored. A perusal of the complaint and the investigation did not point out that the petitioner’s interviews triggered the later incidents.

The arraigning of petitioner by linking his interviews with the stray incident occurring after eight weeks fell in the category of exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice. As such, it was a perfect case to disrupt and stay the continuation of the investigation and further proceedings.

“It is a fit case for this court to prevent the abuse of the process of law because the allegations made in the complaint and the investigation carried out by associating the spot witnesses do not contain any material which even remotely links the incident of April 12 with the interviews of the petitioner,” Justice Chitkara concluded.