- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Stays Observations...
Supreme Court Stays Observations Made By P&H High Court Against Haryana Addl Advocate General
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
17 Feb 2025 7:58 AM
The Supreme Court today (February 17) stayed the adverse observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Additional Advocate General of Haryana in a case where an undertrial prisoner died during the pendency of bail application.A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim order in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State...
The Supreme Court today (February 17) stayed the adverse observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Additional Advocate General of Haryana in a case where an undertrial prisoner died during the pendency of bail application.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim order in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana.
"All observations of the High Court contained in the impugned order vis-a-vis the Additional Advocate General who appeared in the matter representing the petitioner State are stayed until further orders," the Court ordered.
Before the bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra prayed that the observations against the State Counsel be stayed. Against this plea, Respondent's counsel Senior Shoeb Alam appeared.
The High Court made its observations against Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Deepak Sabharwal, in a regular bail application, saying that an an incorrect submission was made that the applicant had filed a second application for regular bail despite the pendency of the first petition. However, it was found that the State Counsel omitted an annexure which stated that the application was filed by the NALSA's special campaign for undertrial prisoners. It was also observed by the Court that the counsel misled the Court on the medical condition of the Respondent.
Reprimanding the State Counsel, Justice Manjargi Nehru Kaul of the High Court observed:
"In the present case, the learned State counsel regrettably failed in this fundamental duty. The misleading representation made before this Court not only cast unwarranted aspersions on an Advocate but also raised unfounded concerns about the functioning of the trial Court. Such erroneous assertions created unnecessary suspicion and sensationalism, thereby undermining the dignity and credibility of the judicial process."
Case Details: STATE OF HARYANA v. SUBHASH CHANDER DUTT (DEAD) THROUGH LRINDRA DUTT|SLP(Crl) No. 2182/2025