CLU case: Punjab and Haryana HC questions state-managed transit security for ex-minister Sidhu, says dispute private
The court stated that Navjot Sidhu is not even an opposite party or arrayed as an accused in the complaint and that nothing has come on record that he was trying to delay proceedings.
The Trial court fell in “grave error” while insisting for physical presence of Congress leader, Navjot Singh Sidhu in a complaint case before the Ludhaina court, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said. “ ..it remained oblivious as to why should public exchequer be burdened by asking the state to bear the expense of complainant’s witness in a totally private dispute qua alleged defamation of the complainant at the hands of another person against whom the private complaint has been filed,” the bench of justice Arun Monga observed adding that the Sidhu is under Z+ security cover and the same would have to be provided to him during his movement from Patiala to Ludhiana where the trial court is situated and return to Patiala, where he is lodged in a jail. It was on Wednesday, high court had quashed October 15 order of trial court seeking physical presence of Sidhu to depose in the case and allowed record of testimony by video-conferencing. The former minister was being summoned to record his testimony in a complaint case involving former Congress minister, Bharat Bhushan Ashu. The complaint has been filed by suspended DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon. Sekhon, who has alleged that Ashu called and threatened him while he was in the process of conducting an inquiry in Grand Manor Homes CLU case. Navjot Sidhu was the then local bodies minister during Congress tenure when alleged incident took place.
The court further stated that Sidhu is not even an opposite party or arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It also recorded that nothing has come on record that he was trying to delay proceedings or impede a fair trial. “….the state is not under any obligation like in the present case to bear the expenses of the witnesses of the complainant but it is the complainant, who has to bear the same,” the court further recorded adding that complainant has also not offered to bear the expenses.
It also stated that no cross-examination is to take place and Sidhu is to appear as a witness in preliminaries, before consideration by the court whether or not to summon the accused. It added that there was no reason why Sidhu should not be allowed to depose through video-conferencing. However, court has made it clear that at the time of cross-examination it would be discretion of trial court whether to allow through video-conferencing or seek his physical presence.
