The Punjab and Haryana High Court connected Thursday fixed July 4 for proceeding a petition filed by Shiromani Akali Dal person and erstwhile furniture curate Bikram Singh Majithia against his “illegal apprehension and consequent remand” days after the Vigilance Bureau registered an FIR nether the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Advertisement
The proceeding was adjourned for a time to alteration his counsel to spot earlier Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s Bench caller remand orders issued successful the case.
Majithia, among different things, had challenged the archetypal remand orders aft terming it arsenic illegal. His remand connected Wednesday was extended by 4 days.
Among different things, Majithia submitted successful his petition that the FIR was a effect of “political witch-hunting and vendetta initiated by the contiguous governmental dispensation with the sole entity of maligning and harassing him arsenic helium has been a vocal professional and governmental opponent”.
The petition was filed done Sartej Singh Narula, Damanbir Singh Sobti and Arshdeep Singh Cheema.
Majithia submitted that the FIR dated June 25 astatine Vigilance Bureau constabulary presumption successful Mohali was “patently illegal” and his apprehension the aforesaid time from his residence was carried retired successful “gross usurpation of settled ineligible procedures”.
The SAD person added helium was kept successful amerciable custody for implicit 2 hours anterior to his authoritative apprehension astatine 11:20 americium arsenic evident from aggregate video recordings and the remand bid passed the adjacent day.
“This custodial detention from 9:00 americium to 11:20 americium was not lone amerciable and arbitrary but besides successful nonstop contravention of the law and statutory request of producing the arrestee earlier a Magistrate wrong 24 hours, arsenic enshrined nether Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the BNSS,” the petition read.
He added that the remand exertion filed by the investigating bureau “lacked factual oregon urgent investigative crushed and simply relied connected broad, speculative allegations specified arsenic the petitioner’s alleged influence, overseas connections, and wide statements astir the request to face him with documents oregon integer devices”.
He further added the assertions intelligibly reflected a motive to extract a confession oregon admittance from him successful usurpation of the protections guaranteed nether Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Besides this, the bid dated June 26 passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class granting remand till July 2 was “manifestly perverse” and non-speaking.
“It suffers from gross procedural irregularities, peculiarly non-compliance with the binding Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.... The magistrate failed to grounds mandatory restitution arsenic required nether the rules, including examining lawsuit diaries, signaling reasons for constabulary custody, and ascertaining the beingness of circumstantial investigative,” helium submitted.
The petition said determination was not adjacent a “whisper” successful the bid to suggest that a magistrate applied his judicial caput oregon considered the anterior orders of the Supreme Court placed earlier him, particularly erstwhile custodial interrogation connected the aforesaid facts had already been declined.
Going into the details, the petition said the Apex Court vide elaborate bid dated March 4 had refused the petitioner’s custodial interrogation “despite the aforesaid allegation being pressed earlier it via aggregate affidavits filed by the authorities of Punjab”.
The Supreme Court, instead, directed him firm with the SIT and articulation investigation, which was afloat complied with.
“Despite the petitioner’s corp and the Apex Court findings, the State has erstwhile again resorted to seeking constabulary custody by concealing worldly facts and misrepresenting urgency earlier the magistrate,” it said.
The petition added the maltreatment of process, the non-application of judicial mind, the stark disregard of binding judicial precedent and procedural safeguards not lone vitiated the remand order, but besides constituted a gross usurpation of the petitioner’s cardinal rights nether Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.
“The contiguous petition, therefore, raises important questions of instrumentality and rule concerning maltreatment of transgression process, misuse of remand powers, and the close to just probe and liberty. The petitioner respectfully prays for due reliefs, including quashing of the amerciable remand bid and due directions to forestall further maltreatment of process,” it read.
English (US) ·