All is not well with bail orders by Addl Sessions Judge: High Court - ECAS Punjab

All is not well with bail orders by Addl Sessions Judge: High Court

Share This

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 18

All is not well with the bail orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. The Bench asserted it was strange to notice the manner in which the court of the Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to two persons, while dismissing the plea of another person in the same case.

Directing the placing of the matter before the Administrative Judge concerned, Justice Fateh Deep Singh asserted in the case of one accused “attributed injuries”, the lower court camouflaged the fact by stating “medical corroboration needs scrutiny”. In the case of the other, the lower court observed “the fact whether this petitioner had conspired to eliminate the deceased is yet to be established”.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh added it was illustrative that all was not well with these orders. The state counsel had submitted that the lower court “for a motivated purpose” allowed the bail to co-accused and declined relief to the petitioner. It was “illustrative of the influence that the accused side wields in the system”.

After hearing arguments and analysing the submissions, Justice Fateh Deep Singh asserted the state’s apprehension that the petitioner might influence the trial was not unfounded, if allowed the bail. “In view of the same, this court does not feel inclined to allow the bail application, which stands dismissed,” the Bench added.

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after Amritpal Singh filed a petition against the state of Punjab for regular bail in a case registered in November last year for murder, criminal intimidation and other offences under Sections 302, 506, 148, and 149 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act.

The allegations against the petitioner were that he was instrumental in hatching a criminal conspiracy against the complainant side leading to the death of the victim. His counsel contended that the co-accused of the petitioner had been allowed regular bail by the lower court. The petitioner’s case was on a better footing than the co-accused. He was away to Nanded Sahib, Maharashtra, when the occurrence took place.

from The Tribune

No comments:

Post a Comment