Illegal detention: Chandigarh SSP, Jail Superintendent in dock

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 8

UT SSP and Superintendent of Jail have virtually landed themselves in the dock. Justice Manoj Bajaj of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked them to show cause why proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against them in an alleged illegal detention case.

The two have also been asked to file their response to justify the custody of an accused, granted bail but not released from prison. “The facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, make out the detention of the petitioner not only illegal, but it amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of release of the petitioner on bail,” Justice Bajaj asserted.

The direction came on a petition filed by Vinay Kumar against the UT and another respondent. Appearing before Justice Bajaj’s Bench, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the accused was directed to be released on bail on June 20 by the UT Additional Sessions Judge in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case registered on September 28, 2019, under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the IPC at the Sector 17 police station.

However, the accused was not released from prison on the pretext that a production warrant dated February 11 stood issued against him by a Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai. “Once the order of bail dated June 20 has been passed in favour of the petitioner, his detention is illegal,” his counsel contended.

UT Additional Public Prosecutor Gautam Dutt, on the other hand, submitted that the bail was indeed granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, subsequently, his application for grant of transit bail in the Mumbai case was declined vide an order dated July 2 by the Judge on the grounds that production warrant against the petitioner had already been issued.

He further submitted that the petitioner could not be produced before the Mumbai court because of the Covid-19 outbreak. As such, he was kept in prison. It was further pointed out that Mumbai police officers’ team would be coming to Chandigarh to take the petitioner’s custody.

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Bajaj, among other things, added: “The order of bail dated June 20 is clear and does not contain any impediment to not releasing the petitioner, much less by observing his involvement in any other case”.

Justice Bajaj added that the UT counsel’s stand was that the warrants were not executed because of the pandemic. As such, the petitioner was kept in custody despite the bail order. “The country presently continues to be in the throes of a global pandemic, Covid-19, and various state governments and UT administrations have also imposed restrictions upon certain activities, including free travel to curb the spread,” Justice Bajaj asserted, adding that his detention on the face of it would as such be illegal.