Chandigarh : The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to former deputy chief minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, then DGP Sumedh Singh Saini and five other cops in the 2015 FIR registered in the Kotkapura police firing case.
The other cops who were granted bail include former IGP Parmraj Singh Umranangal, former Faridkot range deputy inspector general of police Amar Singh Chahal, former senior superintendent of police, Moga, Charanjit Singh Sharma, Sukhminder Singh Mann, the then SSP, Faridkot, and SI Gurdeep Singh. All of them were granted interim protection from arrest in March by the high court.
In February, additional director general of police (ADGP) LK Yadav-led special investigation team (SIT) filed a chargesheet in the police firing case naming Sukhbir, who held the home portfolio during the SAD-BJP regime, and former DGP Saini, among other accused. Following this, they had moved the high court. Two protesters were killed allegedly in the police firing at Behbal Kalan in the aftermath of incidents of sacrilege reported at Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala in 2015. In the firing incidents reported at Kotkapura, protesters suffered injuries.
In its order, the bench of justice Anoop Chitkara observed that it was not a case for pre-trial incarceration. “Despite finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, the police filed a report without arresting them. When the judicial magistrate concerned had directed the investigator to produce the petitioners-accused, they apprehended arrest and filed an application for anticipatory bail before the sessions court, which was dismissed. Thus, if the state was interested in arresting the petitioners during the pendency of the trial, nothing could have stopped them from doing so because till that time, the petitioners had no favourable order, including any interim order,” the bench said, adding that the SIT has already concluded the investigation and they did not need the petitioners’ interrogation.
{{/usCountry}}In its order, the bench of justice Anoop Chitkara observed that it was not a case for pre-trial incarceration. “Despite finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, the police filed a report without arresting them. When the judicial magistrate concerned had directed the investigator to produce the petitioners-accused, they apprehended arrest and filed an application for anticipatory bail before the sessions court, which was dismissed. Thus, if the state was interested in arresting the petitioners during the pendency of the trial, nothing could have stopped them from doing so because till that time, the petitioners had no favourable order, including any interim order,” the bench said, adding that the SIT has already concluded the investigation and they did not need the petitioners’ interrogation.
{{/usCountry}}Furthermore, the evidence that was collected was based on eyewitness accounts and documentary or digital records. Thus, the question of custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not arise, it added.
The court further said that the magnitude of the crime was “undoubtedly massive”, still the evidence collected against the petitioners is based on presumptions that they were involved in the conspiracy and the evidence prima facie lacks evidence qua motive.
“It is not the case of the SIT that any accused was spearheading any campaign to hurt the religious feelings of the Sikh community and other people who have immense faith in Sikhism. Based on the quality of evidence, this court cannot presume the existence of any conspiracy and it is for the prosecution to prove the same during the later stages of the matter, if such stage arrives,” it said.
Granting them anticipatory bail, the court said that in case at any stage the prosecution gets any communication or evidence that the petitioners are influencing the witnesses or hampering the trial, then it would be permissible for the state to file an application for cancellation of bail on that ground alone.
“In the entirety of facts and circumstances and without referring to the evidence collected by the SIT in detail, so that it is misused by the people who propagate hate speeches and hurt religious feelings, it suffices to say that it is not a case for pre-trial incarceration of the petitioners, subject to their complying with the terms and conditions of the interim bail bonds,” the bench said allowing their pleas.