The Supreme Court has termed the Punjab and Haryana High Court order staying the arrest of former DGP Sumedh Singh Saini in all pending cases as well as cases likely to be registered against him as “shocking”.
Issuing notice to the latter in a plea filed by the State of Punjab challenging the said order, the bench of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli said,
“This is unprecedented order, we don’t want to encourage this type of practice. You can’t pass an order that future course of action be stayed..! It is shocking and three of us feel that it is unprecedented. This will require hearing. Issue notice.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he survived an assassination attempt. If the High Court decides the pending writ petition, all things will come to an end.
The Apex Court said we will request the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to assign the matter to another judge, not the one who had passed the interim order.
In September last year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Arvind Singh Sangwan had granted stay on the arrest of Saini till February 2022, and later by an order dated March 3, it had extended the impugned order till April 20.
The order was passed on a plea filed by Saini seeking direction to hand-investigation in any matter registered against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other independent agency outside the State of Punjab as he apprehended his false implication in criminal cases on account of malice, mala-fixed and ulterior motives on the part of political party in power in the State of Punjab.
Secondly, he sought direction to the State to keep any proposal for arresting him, in any criminal matter, in abeyance for a specific period so as to enable him to seek recourse of his legal remedies.
Before arriving at a conclusion in former DGP’s appeal, the Single-Judge had referred a story from the Panchatantra relevant to the “Evolution of Legal Jurisprudence in India.”
“Once upon a time, in a kingdom, an ape (monkey) intruded into the village. The whole village including young, old, educated and uneducated gathered to shunt him out. The poor ape climbed a tall tree, as the crowd gathered, the ape has no idea as to what offence he has committed that everyone is running after his life. In the meantime, the village sarpanch carrying a stick (symbol of authority) came there and looking at the crowd and hearing their noise, enquired about the matter. A man came out of the crowd and said I am lambardar (Headman) appointed by the King to shunt the ape out of the village. The sarpanch politely asked him as to what is the matter and why you want to shunt him out. The lambardar (Headman) said I am the representative of King and you have no business to ask me. The sarpanch again asked, “you all are on one side?”. The whole crowd said, “Yes”, the sarpanch again asked then who is on the side of Ape, there was a pin-drop silence. The lambardar (Headman) said that how do you expect anyone to be on the side of the ape. The sarpanch smiled, raised his stick (symbol of authority) and said this is injustice, I stand for the ape and will not allow you to shunt him out unless you give plausible reasons,” noted the order.
Also read: Delhi High Court adjourns hearing in plea seeking curbs on alcohol, drugs in Delhi
The High Court said,
“This is how the legal system in India work where the Court follows, the principal of ‘audi alteram partem’, i.e. nobody should be condemned unheard. The plight of the petitioner appears to be similar to the story as this Court protected the right of the petitioner by passing various orders, which will be referred in later part of this order.”
The petitioner’s senior counsel apprised the bench of the previous order dated 11.10.2018, passed by the Punjab and Haryana HC in which the court had directed to serve one week notice if he sought to be arrested in Kotkapura sacrilege case or in a case, involving one Aman Skoda, who was arrested in Moga or in other cases pertaining to the incidents, while he remained as a State Vigilance Head or Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Punjab or the Director General of Police, Punjab.
The counsel for the respondent/State had objected the relief sought by Saini, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab”, 1980 (2) SCC 565. He further argued that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be expanded to grant blanket bail orders to a person except in cases where special circumstances are made out. Further, the learned senior counsel for CBI submitted that this is not a case which may be referred to CBI as per guidelines of Supreme Court.
Also read: Assembly elections under Covid-19 shadow: Supreme Court disposes of plea
In response to the above, senior counsel for the petitioner/Saini before the High Court had referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs State of Maharashtra and others”, wherein it was held, “Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes the inherent powers of the High Court, which are necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is the duty of the Courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. The Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum.”
The Single-judge held,
“I find merit in the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that involvement of the petitioner in multiple cases can be a political ploy in wake of the coming State Legislative Assembly General Elections. I am also conspicuous of the dare shown by the Punjab Police officials in trying to overreach the Court as noticed above which is also a circumstance to be considered about the nature and quality of investigation being conducted by the Punjab Police in the
FIRs, therefore, I deem it appropriate to pass the following directions:-
(a) Considering it to be a case of exceptional circumstances and hardship being caused to the petitioner by the State of Punjab (on political grounds), there will be a clear stay for the arrest of the petitioner in all cases pending or likely to be registered or registered or where he is sought to be implicated in the aid of Section 120-B IPC except FIR No.77, where the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, till the General Election in the State of Punjab are held which are due in February, 2022 onwards. The orders dated 11.10.2018 as well as dated 23.09.2020, to continue.”