High Court stays non-bailable warrants against former DSP

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 21

Just about two months after a Mohali court issued non-bailable warrants against former DSP Kanwal Inder Pal Singh in the Multani murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed to keep the order in abeyance.

Justice Alka Sarin also directed keeping in abeyance another order whereby his application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against him in the case was turned down. The direction would remain in force till January 15 — almost a week beyond the deadline set by the former police official’s counsel for his return to the country from Canada.

“The petitioner will remain bound by the statement made by his counsel that he will return to the country on January 9. The petitioner may, thereafter, take recourse to his remedies in accordance with law,” Justice Sarin asserted.

The petitioner, through senior counsel Bipan Ghai and SPS Bhullar, told the Court that non-bailable warrants were issued in the FIR registered on May 6 for murder, abduction and other offences under Sections 302, 364, 201, 344, 330, 219, 120-B of the IPC registered at the Mataur police station in Mohali district.

Ghai contended that the petitioner had initially joined investigation on October 2 and again the next day. He travelled to Canada for some personal work only when he was told that he was no longer required for further investigation. It was further contended that the petitioner travelled after taking requisite permissions from the authorities concerned.

Ghai further contended that the petitioner, in response to a call from SHO Rajiv Kumar on October 10, sent a message that he was in Canada and ready to cooperate. The petitioner had no intention of evading arrest, he added.

Referring to an order dated October 3 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumedh Singh Saini versus the State of Punjab and another’, Ghai contended concession of anticipatory bail was given to the person nominated as the main accused.

The State counsel, on the other hand, factually disputed the averments in the petition before submitting that the petitioner knowingly left the country to evade his arrest.

“Without going into the merits of the case at this stage and keeping in view the fact that a statement has been made before the Court by the counsel for the petitioner that he would return to the country on January 9, 2021, and would thereafter apply for anticipatory bail and the fact that the main accused in the case has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court, the impugned orders dated October 19 and November 25 will remain in abeyance till January 15,” Justice Sarin added.

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/34zmvE6