Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses Simarjeet Bains' petition for anticipatory bail

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 10

In yet another embarrassment for the Punjab 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 Simarjeet 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/person in a rape case. Justice Gill also dismissed petitions by the accused-petitioners for quashing orders declaring them proclaimed offenders/persons.

“It is a matter of surprise that the police authorities felt powerless and ineffective in front of the ‘rage’ of the supporters of the accused and (were) so fearful of the law and order situation which they perceived would be created in the wake of petitioner’s arrest that the challan was presented with a request to summon the accused in the Court. In the given factual matrix, in my considered opinion, 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 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 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 the 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.