When the forbidden order under Section 144 of the CrPC was being enforced at the Shambu border, Navdeep Singh and other farmers are said to have collected there.
July 16, Chandigarh
The Punjab and Haryana High Court claimed it had enough evidence to conclude that Navdeep Singh was being wrongly dragged in several instances, which was a huge embarrassment for the State of Haryana. The claim was made after the farm activist was granted bail by Judge Sandeep Moudgil.
Also Read On the first day, Adnaan Shaikh Requested to leave the house!
It is said that Navdeep Singh and other farmers had gathered at the Shambu border when Section 144 of the CrPC was being used to enforce a prohibitory order. They were accused of attacking the police officers and trying to smash through the barriers they had put up with their help.
The case was brought before Justice Moudgil’s Bench after Navdeep Singh requested regular bail in the February 13 FIR filed at the Ambala Sadar police station for attempted murder and other offences under Sections 147, 149, 186, 188, 307, 332, and 352 of the IPC as well as the National Highway Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Also Read Stree 2: Darane aur Hasane aa rahi hai; Trailer out!
According to Justice Moudgil, the petitioner’s own position was that he was involved in up to 15 further cases, of which he was found not guilty in six. Three cases still had an ongoing inquiry. Each lawsuit followed the same pattern, appearing to be filed in close proximity based on the same accusations.
Furthermore, this court might conclude that the petitioner is being wrongfully implicated in all of the cases because they have all been recorded in the Ambala district alone. In that circumstance, the petitioner would most likely be denied the concession of bail if the rigorous application of the rule prohibiting bail due to the pendingness of other cases or convictions were to occur, according to Justice Moudgil.
Justice Moudgil declared in his comprehensive order that the inquiry was finished and that the case was brought on May 20. Three months and fifteen days in jail was already a considerable amount of time for the petitioner to endure. In addition, the lower court had also granted bail to a co-accused. As a result, the court saw no justification for refusing the petitioner’s request for a bail concession.
“As per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered as guilty till the guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the trial is likely to take long time in the light of the fact that out of 52 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is against the principle ‘bail is a rule, jail is an exception’,” Justice Moudgil concluded.
Stay Connected With us: Siasatpro.com
Recent Comments