Questioning Legality Of Arrest & Remand Orders, Punjab & Haryana HC Extends Interim Bail Of TV Journalist, Grants Relief To 2 Others

On Tuesday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court extended the interim bail granted to Times Now's reporter Bhawana Kishore and also granted interim bail to her cameraman Mritunjay Kumar and driver Parmender Singh Rawat until May 22 in a rash driving case.

In an important observation, the bench of Justice Augustine George Masih said that the arresting officer and then the judicial officers concerned with the case proceeded to pass orders of arrest and remand in a mechanical manner.

The Court observed thus after the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations under the SC/ST Act, if any, are primarily against petitioner No. 1 (Bhawana) and not against Petitioner nos. 2 and 3.

It was further contended that the bailable offences, as alleged to have been committed by petitioners No.2 and 3, should have been taken note of by the officer who had taken these petitioners into custody as nowhere they had been given the option to submit bail bonds.

Importantly, the legality of the order of the Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana granting judicial remand was also challenged as it was argued that when the petitioners were produced before the duty Magistrate, they should have been released on bail as they were nit required for investigation purposes,

Similarly, it was further submitted that when the petitioners were produced before the Special Court, Ludhiana, the said Court also, in a mechanical manner, remanded the petitioners including petitioners No. 2 and 3 to judicial remand without verifying and ascertaining the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by them

Against the backdrop of these submissions and having perused the contents of the FIR, the Court noted that allegations in the FIR did not make out an offence which would be non-bailable qua them. In this regard, the Court made the following observation:

"...firstly, the officer, who had taken these two petitioners in custody, could not have done so without making them aware of the fact that they could avail of the remedy of release on submission of bail bonds or surety. The same would be the position as regards the order of remand at the hands of the Duty Magistrate as also the Special Court. It appears that at no stage, the provisions of the Statute were actually gone into or seen. In a mechanical manner, initially, the Arresting Officer and after that, the Judicial Officers proceeded to pass orders of arrest and remand.

Further, stressing that continuance of a citizen in custody without there being a mandate of law i.e. illegal custody cannot be permitted, the Court asserted that a Constitutional Court, when comes to know of the same, cannot shut its eyes to the same.

"Would it be appropriate to a citizen to continue in incarceration when it is not only apparent from the allegations but an undisputed position that petitioners No. 2 and 3 have not committed the alleged offences which are non-bailable?," the Court asked itself.

Consequently, the Court said that these aspects with regard to the life and personal liberty of a citizen viz-a-viz the non-mentioning of a provision or wrong mentioning of a provision in a petition, which has been filed, could be a ground for denial of a remedy which the citizen is found to be eligible and entitled to, need to be gone into in detail by the Court.

The Court also said that another aspect, which needs to be considered, is the power, ambit and scope of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Article 21 of the Constitution especially when the High Court not only exercised its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code but is mandated and required to protect the life and liberty of a citizen constitutionally.

Hence, the Court granted interim bail to petitioners nos. 2 and 3 while granting the respondent-State 10 days' time to file a reply to the petition for quashing of the FIR. 

Appearances

Sr. Advocate R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate Chetan Mittal, with Advocates Pawan Narang, Kunal Mulwani, Gautam Dutt, Mayank Aggarwal, Udit Garg, Arjun S. Rai, Lokesh Narang, Farhad Kohli, Sukriti Rai [Advocate for the petitioners]

Addl. A.G. Punjab Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, and Advocate Ferry Sofat [for the respondent-State]

ADCP-I, Ludhiana Rupinder Kaur Sran

Case title - BHAWANA GUPTA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Click Here To Read/Download Order