In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of bail pleas in the Ajnala police station attack case, emphasizing that no citizen can disrupt the administration of justice or harm public authorities in their duty. This decision comes in the context of the infamous Ajnala incident involving radical Sikh preacher Amritpal Singh as the key accused.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, while hearing petitions filed by Ajaypal Singh alias Shiv Kumar and Bhupinder Singh alias Sheru, stated,
“Considering the gravity of the offences, this court is not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail, merely because he has suffered incarceration of eight months. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.”
The court also directed the Punjab Police to expedite the investigation for an early conclusion of the trial.
The petitioners, alleged allies of Amritpal Singh, sought regular bail, claiming false implication as they were not initially named in the FIR or in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Their names surfaced in a subsequent disclosure statement by co-accused Gurpal Singh alias Gurlal Singh. They also highlighted the delay in FIR registration and their absence in photographs and videos prepared by Punjab Police.
The state countered these claims, asserting the petitioners’ association with Amritpal Singh, who, along with his accomplices, incited the youth of Punjab with inflammatory speeches and justified the actions of human-bomb Dilawar Singh Babbar, the assassin of Chief Minister Beant Singh. The state also referred to the recovery of weapons and related material from the petitioners.
Also read-Delhi High Court Orders Improvement Of Medical Infrastructure In Prisons (lawchakra.in)
In a related judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Gurbir Singh, clarified that sufficient evidence can corroborate the prosecution’s version, even if the complainant turns hostile. The court observed,
“Where sufficient evidence is available to corroborate prosecution version, the statement of the complainant, despite his turning hostile during cross-examination can safely be relied upon.”
This statement was made in the context of a murder case where the complainant initially supported the prosecution but later deviated in cross-examination. The court noted the undue delay in recording the cross-examination and the possibility of the accused influencing the complainant. The court also upheld the admissibility of the FSL report and the recovery of the weapon of offense, dismissing the plea against the murder conviction.
These rulings highlight the court’s commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings, even in the face of hostile witnesses and complex evidentiary challenges.
Also read-Gujarat High Court Affirms Dismissal Of Judge For Unauthorized Leave And Misconduct (lawchakra.in)
