‘Punjab not part of India’: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to man, cites threat to communal peace

‘Not mere expression of views’

• The allegations against the petitioner, by any standard, are not mere expressions of views, within the prescribed limits meant for enjoying the freedom of speech.
• The presence of the petitioner in the CCTV footage is contrary to his submission that, except for the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no other legally admissible evidence against the petitioner.
• The petitioner’s anticipatory bail will be a denial of the opportunity to the Investigation Agency to interrogate the petitioner.
• Custodial interrogation is the right of the Investigating Agency and should not be denied unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
• Considering the gravity of the offence, no exceptional circumstance exists in the present case to render the petitioner anticipatory bail.
• Thus, the petition is dismissed.

‘No nexus with the crime’

• Advocate Deepak Arora, counsel of the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had no nexus with the commission of the crime.
• He further stated that the petitioner was being harassed by the police merely based on a disclosure statement by the co-accused.
• He contended that there was no legally admissible evidence collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner.

‘Threatening communal harmony and peace’

• Eklavya Darshi, deputy advocate general for the state, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were very serious in nature.
• He further emphasised petitioner was part of the machinery working against the state and threatened the communal harmony and peace of the nation.
• He also contended that the CCTV footage would prove the nexus between the petitioner and the commission of the crime during the trial.
• Consequently, in order to find the requisite elements behind the offence, the petitioner’s interrogation is necessary.

Background: ‘Punjab is not a part of India’

• An FIR was reported by the sub-inspector against a terrorist organisation known as “Sikh for Justice” (SFJ) that was allegedly behind the incident where slogans against the state were written on the walls near R R Thapar College, Samdh Road.
• The police officer reported that the slogans written as “Khalistan SFJ Zindabad” and “Punjab is not a part of India”, and thirdly that “those spreading Hindu extremism must leave Punjab by October 19.”
• Allegedly derogatory remarks for the Home Minister of India, the Chief Minister of Punjab and the Director General of Police (DGP) Punjab were also made in the slogans.
• An FIR was lodged, and an investigation was taken up.
• The petitioner was alleged to have written the slogans and was identified in CCTV footage.

Precedents referred:

• Srikant Upadhyay v State of Bihar 2024 SCC, the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary, and irrespective of bail being a rule held in several cases, it cannot be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. It was further observed that the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation.
• Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v The State of Maharashtra 2024, observed that anticipatory bail is an exception and ought not be granted routinely. There must exist strong reasons for extending this bail to a person accused of grave offences.
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v State of Punjab 1980 SCC, observed that the power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.

Conclusion

• The court is of the view that, considering the gravity of the offence, the denial of the right of custodial interrogation to the investigating Agency would hamper the investigation.
• The court also observed that the present case was not an exception to permit the extraordinary grant of anticipatory bail to the accused.
• Thus, the court held that the petition for anticipatory bail is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.