HC raps Punjab police, junks Simarjit Singh Bains' petition for anticipatory bail

Chandigarh, June 10

In yet another embarrassment for the state police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today expressed surprise that the authorities felt “powerless and ineffective in front of the rage” of then MLA Simarjit Singh Bains’ supporters.

The assertion came as Justice Lisa Gill dismissed a bunch of petitions filed by Bains seeking the concession of anticipatory bail and setting aside of an order declaring him a proclaimed offender (PO)/person in a rape case. Justice Gill also dismissed petitions by the co-accused for quashing orders declaring them POs/persons.

“It’s a matter of surprise that the police felt powerless and ineffective in front of the ‘rage’ of the accused’s (Bains) supporters and (were) so fearful of the law and order situation, which they perceived will be created in the wake of the petitioner’s arrest that the challan was presented with a request to summon him to the court. In the given factual matrix, in my considered opinion, the accused-petitioners are not at liberty to take any benefit of the shortcomings on the part of the investigating agency/police,” Justice Gill asserted.

In her detailed order, Justice Gill added it was indeed a reflection on the clout the accused-petitioner was able to wield on the police authorities. It was further reflected from the fact that even non-bailable warrants, directed to be served through the Commissioner of Police, remained unexecuted.

Justice Gill added the accused-petitioners, in the given facts and circumstances, did not deserve the court’s indulgence as it was apparent that they appeared to entertain a notion that law was to be flouted at their whims and fancies and was subservient to their cause. The state was represented by Senior Deputy Advocate-General Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala.

Justice Gill added it would be a travesty of justice to accept the argument on behalf of accused Bains that he could not be termed an absconder as he was in the process of availing his remedies. It was not the petitioners’ case while assailing order dated April 12 that they were unaware of the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the trial court. Their argument was that an incorrect procedure was followed.

“In the present case, there is complete absence of any prejudice, much less grave prejudice, being caused to the petitioner. All petitioners have avoided the process of law with impunity. It is apparent that petitioners were aware of the presentation of the challan and issuance of warrants…,” Justice Gill added.

Before parting with the case, Justice Gill directed that applications for bail pending trial, if any, be decided expeditiously and definitely within a week thereafter, in case the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate/trial court a week of receiving the order’s certified copy.