HC judge gets e-mail accusing him of ‘undue hurry’ in hearing Saini’s pleas

The mail was received when Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi was in the middle of hearing arguments for the second time on Thursday afternoon

Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who was hearing pleas against the arrest of former Punjab director general of police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini in connection with an FIR registered in September 2020 got an email accusing him of “ undue hurry”.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The email was received when Justice Tyagi was in the middle of hearing arguments for the second time on Thursday afternoon. Earlier in the day, he had summoned the records pertaining to Saini’s arrest.

Justice Tyagi on Thursday ordered the release of Saini from the custody of the Punjab vigilance bureau in the case. The judge, in his order released on Thursday night, said the e-mail was purportedly sent by investigating officer Harvinder Pal Singh, a Punjab Police Service (PPS) officer. Addressed to the chief justice, the sender of the email wanted the case transferred from Justice Tyagi to other bench, claiming that the government’s side was not heard by the judge.

However, during the hearing, the counsels of Punjab government and the vigilance bureau feigned ignorance about the email and told the court that neither of the two had authorised it. The mail was sent to chief justice as well as to the bench of justice Tyagi.

“This court reserves the right to take appropriate action in respect of the e-mail casting aspersion regarding hurry in hearing of the matter without realising that any habeas corpus petition raises serious issue of unlawful detention which has to be heard on urgent basis,” observed Justice Tyagi who is hearing a 2018 petition of Saini since February last year.

A plea from Saini’s wife was ordered to be listed before him on Thursday by another judge as it came to light that he was to take up the 2018 petition the same day.

Saini was arrested by the vigilance bureau in a land fraud case on Wednesday evening when he had gone to the bureau office to join investigation on the court’s order in a corruption case. His release was ordered on Thursday midnight by Justice Tyagi after two rounds of hearing.

Justice Tyagi dealt with two petitions from Saini’s side — the one filed on August 18 seeking advancing of hearing in a 2018 petition in which the court had directed that he be given one week’s notice in the event of his arrest and the other from his wife who alleged ex-DGP’s illegal detention in violation of the HC orders. She had levelled allegations that VB chief director B K Uppal, was a “stooge” of BIS Chahal, adviser to Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh and acted as part of “vendetta” to harass her husband.

The bench allowed the habeas corpus petition and held that Saini’s arrest was illegal and it was effected in violation of the protection given by the court on three occasions.

The investigating officer was given liberty to arrest Saini after giving a seven-day notice.

The government in its defence said the 2018 order giving “blanket bail” could not have been passed by the high court, citing some apex court judgments. It further argued the arrest was made in a case which did not arise out of his service period and that his arrest was not a case of illegal detention.

Taking note of the SC observation, the bench said the court has to strike a balance between individual rights of personal freedom and the police’s right of investigation in “an extraordinary case and on the basis of ample material”.

The court also took note of “political and personal rivalry” between Amarinder Singh and his predecessor Parkash Singh Badal, saying “findings of political vendetta” between them dates back to the 1990s as were recorded in judicial orders.

Saini served as DGP during the SAD-BJP regime and headed the vigilance bureau when corruption cases were registered against Amarinder Singh, the incumbent CM. The court also observed that Saini, as per the VB case, did not receive any bribe from anyone or possess disproportionate assets or had any other financial transaction with the accused in the September 2020 FIR except renting of a Sector-20 house in 2018.

The rent agreement was purportedly executed in 2019. It is doubtful that the 2019 agreement was executed to create a defence against attachment of the house for which order was passed in 2021, the court said.