Just about three days after Punjab assured the Punjab and Haryana High Court that no coercive steps would be taken against Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Pathak without seeking the court’s prior permission, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu’s Bench extended the interim protection for a week.At the onset, counsel appearing for the State of Punjab sought a week’s time to apprise the court about FIR, if any, registered against Pathak after seeking instructions in this regard. The Bench was informed that the arguing counsel was unavailable, following which the time was sought.Punjab’s assurance on the previous date of hearing came after the High Court repeatedly questioned the State on whether any FIR had actually been registered against Pathak, while also terming it “a little unimaginable” that the State was unable to clarify the position despite the matter being before the court.Senior advocate Randeep Rai, appearing for Pathak, had argued that newspaper reports claimed two FIRs were registered against the Rajya Sabha MP after he switched political allegiance. He contended that despite approaching the Director-General of Police, the petitioner was not being informed whether any FIR existed, where it was registered, or under what offences.During the hearing, State counsel had submitted that the petition was not-maintainable and could not be entertained. He opposed the petition as “speculative” and based only on newspaper reports, while contending that the petitioner was effectively seeking blanket anticipatory bail without disclosing any offence or FIR particulars.The counsel added information regarding any case registered against the petitioner could only be provided after inquiring from all the districts. “Naturally, we will enquire. We will seek information from all the districts, because he has disclosed nothing,” he had submitted.Rai, in turn, had countered by saying: “Why should the State want to play hide-and-seek and not tell me if there is an FIR,” Rai contended, adding that the State wanted to keep the element of surprise alive by withholding information on the alleged cases.The Bench, during the course of hearing, had asserted it was a little unimaginable that the State did not know whether an FIR had been lodged. “That’s a little difficult to understand,” the court observed. The Bench, at one stage, indicated that the petitioner could invoke anticipatory bail jurisdiction following which the State would have to come out with the details. Rai had, however, maintained that the immediate concern was disclosure of FIR details.