E-Paper
HC refuses to expunge remarks against Akali leader Bony Ajnala
Bench says Ajnala’s statement against SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia was “an integral part of the reasoning” of the high court and “inextricably intertwined” with the prima facie view recorded by the court while allowing the former revenue minister’s bail plea in the drugs case on August 10
The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to expunge remarks against Shiromani Akali Dal leader Amarpal Singh Ajnala, alias Bony Ajnala, made while deciding the bail plea of SAD leader and former revenue minister Bikram Singh Majithia in a drugs case.
Also read: Sukhbir Badal nominates 25 party general secretaries
On August 10, the court had observed that Ajnala’s claims of getting threats from Majithia and his associates “were hyped up and appeared to have been made with a view to get back police security”.
Ajnala wanted these observations expunged as they were not necessary for a decision in the case and he had not been given an opportunity before the observations against him were made. The petitioner is a prosecution witness. Hence, such remarks are unwarranted, he argued.
Bony Ajnala is a two-term MLA and son of Akali veteran and former MP Rattan Singh Ajnala. He is a prosecution witness in the drugs case against Majithia, registered on December 20, 2021, by Punjab Police during the previous Congress government’s tenure. Majithia was arrested and the court had made the observations while deciding on the bail plea. The police had opposed the bail, citing Ajnala’s claims.
The high court bench of justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Sureshwar Thakur said Ajnala’s statements to the police were strongly relied upon by the state to oppose the bail. The court considered the statements but didn’t find them to be containing any such material showing the involvement of Majithia in the offences alleged against him.
The court also noted that police security had been given to Ajnala before February 2022, which was withdrawn after change of government and restored in July after he moved court claiming threat.
“While discussing the question as to the existence or non-existence of material against Majithia in the commission of the offences, in the applicant’s statements, the observations have been made by the court suggesting a possible motive for the applicant to make the allegations,” the court said, adding the observations can’t be termed “irrelevant or alien” to the subject matter.
The bench recorded that the statement was “an integral part of the reasoning” of the high court and “inextricably intertwined” with the prima facie view recorded by the court while allowing the bail plea of Majithia on August 10.
“We don’t find the remarks to be adverse or such as are likely to cause harm to the applicant herein,” the bench held, adding that all these remarks and even the other prima facie conclusions recorded in the August 10 order were not to be construed as “final expression of opinion” on the merits of the prosecution case against Majithia. It was stated that they were made only for the purpose of adjudication of the bail application, the bench added.
