In above published article the defence argued that the latest abduction and disappearance FIR against Sumedh Singh Saini former Punjab DGP was not maintainable and pleaded the court to quash the petition of an anticipatory bail plea filed by Saini, the prosecution pressed for the custodial interrogation of the former police officer. Prosecutionals demanded his immediate arrest.


The court of additional district and session judge Monica Goyal, however deserved orders for Monday. At present, the interim relief has been denied as the anticipatory bail application and stay on arrest came up for hearing.

Also Read- Grounds of Anticipatory Bail in India

Prosecution has sought for custodial interrogation of Saini, boomed in connection with the disappearance of Balwant Singh Multani in1991and Multani was the son of former IAS officer Darshan Singh Multani. District attorney Sanjiv Batra said,“To unearth the truth, DGP needed to be taken into custody. Two investigation officers have died thus only person who can reveal about Multani’s body is Saini. I rejoining the investigation will not serve the purpose.

For Saini, counsel APS Deol supported by HS Dhanoa appeared in the court. Pradeep Virk appeared for the complainant.

Virk said they demanded Saini’s custodial interrogation as two investigating officers had passed away and hence they needed to interrogate the accused. “As earlier, the Supreme Court, while quashing the application of the state said the merit shave not been touched in the case and SC gave liberty to challenge the case. Therefore, legal proceedings a fresh were taken up in which we demanded immediate arrest of the accused for custodial interrogation.”

Also Read- Cancellation of Bail by High Court in India

On the other hand, the defence, while countering the prosecutions claims, said if legal proceedings were to be taken a fresh, atleast a week must be given.

Advocate Deol, assisted by HS Dhanoa, said“ we pleaded that the FIR is not maintainable as no person can be tried in the court fort he same offence twice, as DG Phas already been tried for the same allegation in HC when CBI booked him after which he approached Supreme Court, which quashed the HC orders. It said there we resome technical lapses and complainant may get the case reopened if law permits. Now, SC clearly states that‘ if law permits ‘and in law it is very clear that one once convicted or acquitted not be tried for same offence as per section 300 of the Crpc and Article 20 of Constitution Of India. Also, it is questionable that why the FIR had been registered after 29 years of the crime.”

Virk said, a women advocate was eye witness to tortured and had come to the court to record her statement but, she was not heard as court was hearing the application on anticipatory.


Advocate APS Deol while arguing the case pointed out that High Court of Punjab and Haryana had earlier given protection to ex DGP Sumedh Singh Saini, saying that a prior notice of seven days must be issued before fresh trial or registration of FIR but, here an FIR has been registered against him overnight at Mathura police station, defying the orders. Secondly the prosecution does not have any evidence against DGP. While reasoning to this argument, prosecution counsel Pradeep Virk said,“ when a fresh case is registered, it starts from a FIR first only then further proceedings can be initiated. Here, the law permits a fresh trial and that can only be possible after registering fresh FIR against DGP.”

The victim Balwant Singh Multani was accused of carrying out an attack on Saini when he was the Chandigarh Senior Superintendent of Police on December 11, 1991. He was booked along with Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar:-a convict in the Delhi bomb blast case and two others, but the police later claimed Balwant escaped from the custody of Qadian (Gurdaspur) police.

Also Read- Bail in Corruption Cases

In this above case DGP Sumedh Singh Saini and others were booked under sections 364 (kidnapping or abduction in order to murder), 201(causing disappearance of evidence), 344 (wrongful confinement), 330(voluntarily causing hurt to exhort confession) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) on the basis of a complaint by Balwant Multani’s brother Palwinder Singh Multani.

On contradictory to this SC clearly states that ‘i flaw permits’and in law it is very clear that one, once convicted or acquitted not betried for same offence as persection 300 of the Crpc and Article 20 of Constitution of India which prohibits self-incrimination. It says, “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”Article 20(3) is based on common law ‘maxims emote nature proderese ipsum’ which means that “no man is bound to accuse himself.”

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Criminal Lawyers, Bail, Chandigarh Bench Lawyers, Legal Advice in Panchkula Mohali Punjab Haryana. Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar

This post is written by Sneha.

More on 78883-56908