Defence counsel objects to Bar representative,hearing adjourned

Earlier,the Bar association had filed a protest petition,opposing the closure report filed by the CBI. Subsequently,the case was slated for hearing on Monday,to determine the locus standi of the petition.

Asserting that Gupta cannot appear because he represented the state in this case at the initial stage,the defence counsel moved an application,pleading the court to debar Gupta from appearing in the case.

“Gupta is a senior standing counsel of the UT Administration and is duly appointed by the UT Administrator. So he cannot oppose the closure report filed by a department of the Central government,” defence counsel A S Chahal said.

Gupta said he was a special public prosecutor in the case on behalf of the UT Administration from August 20 to August 26,2008. Subsequently,the case was transferred to the CBI and a public prosecutor had taken over the case from him.

“I am here as member of the Bar association. My submission today on behalf of the Bar association is absolutely congruent and consistent with my submission in 2008 as special public prosecutor. For Bar association also,I am acting in aid of the prosecution,opposing the miscarriage of justice,” Gupta said during the course of arguments. “I am flattered that my persona is proving to be so challenging to the accused.”

The resolution passed by the Bar association on February 9,requesting Anupam Gupta to appear in the case,was also submitted in court.

Subsequently,the court adjourned hearing in the case to February 17,when Gupta would file a written reply on maintainability of the protest petition and to the application filed by the defence counsel.

The case had rocked the Punjab and Haryana High Court after Rs 15 lakh was “wrongly delivered” at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur on August 13,2008,following which she had reported the matter to the police.

Later,the then Haryana additional advocate general Sanjeev Bansal,property dealer Rajiv Gupta and Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh were arrested.

In December last year,the CBI had filed a closure report in the case.

‘Intervention of Bar association not permissible’
Filing a response to the petition,opposing the closure report,submitted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association,the defence counsel stated that the Bar cannot harp on matters,which are wholly unconcerned with its members.

“It is the basic duty of the state to deal with criminal matters as per law and it is the right of the accused to defend themselves. Thus,the intervention of the Bar Association is not permissible as per law,” the reply reads.