‘Punjab Police, jail authorities defied high court order’: SAD worker’s father moves contempt petition

The controversy stems from an FIR dated May 30, registered at Majitha police station in Amritsar Rural district, in which Mukhwant Singh’s son Jobanpreet Singh was named as an accused. Mukhwant Singh had approached the high court through a habeas corpus petition challenging his son’s arrest and detention, alleging violation of constitutional safeguards and statutory provisions governing arrests.

In its June 3 judgment, the high court held that the initial arrest and detention of Jobanpreet Singh was illegal and in violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directing that he be released forthwith. The court, however, granted liberty to the state to proceed further in accordance with law and after following due process.

Referring to the judgment, the contempt petition notes that the court reiterated the constitutional requirement that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest.

The high court had observed, “If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1)… it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well… and the arrest will be rendered illegal.”

The contempt petition further states that the high court’s order contemplated compliance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra’.

Quoting a paragraph of that judgment, the petition says that where an arrest is rendered illegal, any subsequent application for remand or custody must be moved before a magistrate after supplying written grounds of arrest to the accused and in accordance with principles of natural justice.

According to the petitioner, after the order was uploaded on June 4, family members waited outside Central Jail, Amritsar, expecting Jobanpreet Singh’s release.

The plea alleges that advocate A S Siyali met the jail superintendent and requested compliance with the order, but the detenue was not released on the grounds that the authorities had not received a copy of the judgment. The petition further claims that the superintendent declined a request to verify the order from the high court’s official website.

The petitioner has also alleged that SHO Naresh Kumar arrived at the jail on the instructions of DSP Kamalmeet Singh and sought to re-arrest Jobanpreet Singh under provisions of the Arms Act.

‘Disclosure statement’

According to the plea, the Arms Act offences had been added to the FIR on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement and recovery effected during police remand. The petition contends that any attempt to secure fresh custody without first approaching a competent magistrate and complying with the procedure outlined by the high court and the Supreme Court amounted to a violation of the June 3 order.

The contempt petition alleges that the respondents acted in concert to frustrate the implementation of the court’s directions and describes their conduct as a “colourable exercise of power to render the order of this Hon’ble Court nugatory”.