The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent verdict, granted anticipatory bail to SAD chief and former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab, Sukhbir Singh Badal. He was accused of conspiring in the “unprovoked firing” on peaceful protestors in Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan in 2015, following multiple sacrilege incidents in Punjab.
Justice Anoop Chitkara, who delivered the judgment, also extended relief to former DGP Sumedh Saini, former IGP Paramraj Umranagal, and three others. The court observed,
“the magnitude of the crime was undoubtedly massive; still, the evidence collected against the petitioners is based on presumptions that the petitioners were involved in the conspiracy, and the evidence prima facie lacks evidence qua motive.”
The court further added that it
“cannot presume the existence of any conspiracy”,
emphasizing that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the conspiracy, if such a stage arises.
Highlighting the background, in 2015, police fired upon protestors who were demonstrating against sacrilege incidents in Punjab’s Faridkot district. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) deduced that the firing at Kotkapura Chowk was a result of a conspiracy involving the then Chief Minister, the late Parkash Singh Badal, Sukhbir Singh Badal, who was then the Home Minister, and senior police officers.
Justice Chitkara remarked,
“If the State was interested in arresting the petitioners during the pendency of the trial, then nothing could have stopped them from doing so because, till that time, the petitioners had no favorable order, including any interim order.”
The court also noted that the SIT had concluded its investigation and did not require the accused’s interrogation.
The anticipatory bail pleas were filed after the police submitted its final report, and the Magistrate Court issued a notice of the challan to the accused. The court referred to the case of Sidharth v. State of UP (2022), stating,
“there is no need for an accused whom the Investigating agency did not arrest. Still, the trial court wants custody at the time of filing of the chargesheet…”
The court also directed that if the prosecution finds evidence suggesting the petitioners are influencing witnesses or hampering the trial, the State can file an application for bail cancellation on that ground alone.
The case has been a focal point of attention, given the involvement of high-profile political figures and the sensitive nature of the incidents leading to the firing. The court’s decision underscores the importance of evidence-based judgments in high-stakes cases.
