In this post we will discuss about the most recent update in Sumedh Saini case and the High court’s say in this case.
new evidence in case need to be safe from prying eyes The HC While upholding the contentions for custodial interrogation of former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini in a murder case, the Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that since fresh evidence of police and other witnesses has come up, “an urgent need arises to preserve the same from prying eyes of the petitioner for the trial”.
As “Since it is at this juncture, the investigating agency has woken up and gathered courage to investigate its own officer and therefore, the vital pieces of evidence which would come handy in leading to various leads would inch towards unravelling this puzzle which too has baffled the citizenry who are looking upon the justice system as a last resort to get justice,” observed Justice Fateh Deep Singh of the HC while dismissing Saini’s plea for anticipatory bail.
In his detailed order, which was released on Wednesday, Justice Singh also observed that in such nature of crime the commission is in utmost secrecy and coming across witnesses is a herculean task in itself as it is more based on circumstances and common human experiences which were experienced in abundance by this state in those dark days.
Referring to Saini’s clout, the judge also observed that the petitioner happened to be a blue-eyed boy and with political patronage wielded great influence and was law unto himself. In this regard, the HC referred to a 1991 case titled Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab in which a senior judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court accused Saini of intimidating him.
FIR against Saini was registered on the complaint of Palwinder Singh Multani alleging that his brother Balwant Singh, a junior engineer with UT Chandigarh, was allegedly killed in state-managed elimination around December 1991.
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code
- Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in•flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
THE HONOURABLE HC OBSERVED;
“A million-dollar question arises whether under the garb of interim bail/anticipatory bail, the hands of the investigating agency can be tied so as to frustrate its endeavours to unearth the truth and reach into the circumstances unfolding into the manner of the crime. If it would have been the intention of the legislature, then no crime in this world could have been detected and the culprits would have gone scot-free,” observed Justice Singh
This post was written by Bharti Verma
For case specific advice consults with expert and gets professional Legal advice from Top High Court criminal bail lawyers advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali. Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur
More on 99888-17966.