No surprise arrests: Punjab to High Court on Rajya Sabha member Sandeep Pathak FIRs row

“I am fundamentally only asking that if there is an FIR, give me a copy. I will take my recourse in law that is available to me,” Rai said, adding that Pathak had already written to the Punjab DGP seeking particulars, but had received no response.

Rai argued that the Punjab Government could not “play hide-and-seek” over the existence of criminal proceedings. “Why should the state want to play hide-and-seek mode and not tell me there is an FIR? You go ahead and seek whatever remedy you have,” he submitted, contending that Pathak was facing uncertainty and apprehended sudden police action.

He further argued that the withholding of information created the possibility of a “surprise element”.

“The whole intention is to keep the FIRs in their pockets so that it is a surprise element,” Rai submitted, seeking protection from coercive action till the matter was clarified.

Punjab Government’s stance

Counsel appearing for the Punjab Government opposed the petition’s maintainability, arguing that it was based entirely on speculative newspaper reports and did not disclose any concrete material, such as the police station concerned, the alleged offences, or the complainant.

“This is speculative. The law is very clear. This kind of petition cannot be entertained,” the state counsel submitted, urging the court to first frame a preliminary issue on maintainability.

The Punjab Government initially said it needed time to obtain instructions, stating that no specifics had been disclosed in the petition that would enable authorities to verify where any FIR may have been registered.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, expressed surprise that despite receiving an advance copy of the petition, the State had come to court without instructions on whether any FIR had in fact been registered.

“It is a little difficult to understand,” the court observed, noting that special counsel had appeared but was still unable to answer the basic question.

At one stage, the court suggested that if Pathak apprehended arrest, he could invoke the jurisdiction for anticipatory bail.

Rai, Pathak’s lawyer, responded that he was prepared to pursue remedies available in law, but only after being told whether an FIR existed and what it contained. “I am only saying, give me a copy of the FIR, I will take my remedy in law,” Rai submitted.

After seeking instructions, the Punjab Government issued a formal statement to the court stating that no coercive steps would be taken against Pathak without first approaching the high court.

Recording the submission, the court noted that the Punjab Government had undertaken that “no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner without seeking prior permission of the court”. The court also said it would consider, on the next date of hearing, the preliminary objection raised by the Punjab Government to the maintainability of Pathak’s petition.

The matter will now come up on Monday.