State: Officers conversant with facts will appear before HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 12

The state government has assured the Punjab and Haryana High Court that officers and other persons well conversant with the facts of the case will be present before the Bench in future during the hearing of cases.

Punjab Advocate-General Atul Nanda has also assured Justice Daya Chaudhary’s Bench that custody certificate not only in applications for suspension of sentence but also in regular bails would be available with law officers. Custody certificates indicate the time spent by an accused behind bars and is more often than not required during the adjudication of pleas for suspension of sentence and bail as period spent in confinement is a ground for seeking release.

The developments before Justice Chaudhary’s Bench took place on a petition filed by Kiranjit Singh against the state. Nanda also gave an assurance that copies of applications and main petitions received in the Advocate-General’s office would also be available.

The High Court has already reminded the Punjab Police that its investigating officers were not supposed to be present in court merely to hold and carry files back and forth. They were required to be well-versed with the fact of the case.

The High Court, in another matter, had also directed the Bathinda Senior Superintendent of Police to look into one such matter where the IO was unaware of the fact that the charges had been framed in the case. He was not even in a position to inform the Bench about the next date of hearing before the trial court.

Appearing before Justice Jaishree Thakur’s Bench, the petitioner’s counsel in that case had contended that the accused had been in custody since July 4. He had added that the matter had been investigated, challan presented and charges framed. But the trial was likely to take some time.

Justice Thakur had placed on record the court’s displeasure with the investigating officer. Justice Thakur asserted he came to the court, but offered no assistance whatsoever. He was unaware about the framing of the charges and not in a position to inform the court about the next date of hearing.