The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday extended till next week its interim order restraining Punjab from taking coercive action against Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Pathak without prior permission of the court. Senior advocate Randeep Rai, appearing for Pathak, accused the State of “playing hide and seek” by repeatedly refusing to disclose whether any FIR had actually been registered against him.During the hearing before Chief Justice Sheel Nagu’s Bench, Rai asserted that despite a specific query by the court on the previous date of hearing, the State was still unwilling to state whether any cognizable offence had been registered against Pathak.“Today again the State wants to play hide and seek with the court and not even tell the court whether it is a reality, whether there are FIRs or it is not a reality,” Rai submitted.Referring to the previous proceedings, Rai reminded the Bench that Punjab’s counsel had earlier sought time after saying he was unaware whether any FIR existed. “The court asked him this question on May 8, and today he repeats the answer to the court that ‘I am sorry, I have no instructions, I do not know’,” Rai argued.Rai contended that newspaper reports had suggested registration of two FIRs against Pathak after his change in political allegiance and maintained that a citizen had a right to know if criminal proceedings had been initiated against him.Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Youth Bar Association of India, Rai argued: “Once there is an FIR, a citizen has the right to know. You are supposed to upload it within 24 hours. Here, you are playing hide and seek.”He further asserted that the issue transcended the individual case of a Member of Parliament. “This is the right of a citizen of the country,” Rai told the Bench, while questioning the State’s reluctance to answer a direct query from the court.The counsel, appearing for Punjab, continued to oppose the petition on maintainability. He argued that the plea was based merely on “speculation” and apprehension arising out of media reports, while insisting that the petitioner ought to have invoked anticipatory bail jurisdiction instead.The Bench repeatedly observed during the hearing that anticipatory bail was the statutory remedy available in cases involving apprehension of arrest. “That is why the anticipatory bail provision applies — when you apprehend arrest,” the court observed at one stage, while adding that through anticipatory bail proceedings, the accused could come to know about the FIR and allegations.State counsel further argued that disclosure of such information in proceedings of the present nature would “open a floodgate”, while also referring to provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita governing supply of police papers after filing of the police report.At the same time, the Bench also expressed difficulty in understanding the State’s continued inability to answer the specific query. “I fail to understand what is the hesitation in answering the query as to whether any offence has been registered or not registered,” the Chief Justice observed during the hearing.The court also recorded Punjab’s objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, but clarified that the issue would be considered only after Punjab answered the court’s earlier query on whether any cognizable offence had been registered against Pathak.Recording that the State had “yet again sought time to answer the query of the court as to whether any cognizable offence has been registered against the petitioner or not”, the Bench ordered that the interim protection granted earlier would continue till the next date of hearing.The matter has now been adjourned to next week.