Hearing dismissed Punjab Assistant Inspector General (AIG) Raj Jit Singh Hundal’s plea challenging a Mohali judicial magistrate court’s orders on issuing arrest warrants against him, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the magistrate to “defer the issuance of taking a call on the proclamation” for one week to enable Hundal to apply for anticipatory bail.
Hundal was booked for allegedly amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income following three reports of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) highlighting the role of various police officers in aiding and abetting the drug trade in Punjab. He has sought to set aside three status reports filed by the SIT in 2018, terming them to be vexatious, arbitrary and malafide.
Hundal further sought to quash the communication dated April 17, 2023, whereby the special secretary, home directed the Punjab DGP to nominate him as an accused in a 2017 case and sought to entrust the entire investigation qua him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency by constituting a SIT comprising officers from outside Punjab to investigate and look into the origin and aftermath of the accusations and nature of cases being foisted against Hundal.
A bench of Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said on Thursday, “The petitioner is apprehending arrest on account of being nominated as an accused, which is on the basis of the report submitted by the senior officers as being part of SIT. Firstly it would be appropriate that he avails the said remedy as substantial period has expired and he has not come forth.”
“Since the matter is already pending for July 15, 2023 before the magistrate, the limited relief we grant is that the said magistrate shall defer the issuance of taking a call on the proclamation on the said date for a period of one week, since the petitioner’s right would be adversely affected, if he is declared a proclaimed offender and his right to seek anticipatory bail would be affected on this sole ground”, the bench held.
The bench further opined that “it is imperative that before any legal issue can be raised regarding other aspects, it is for the petitioner to avail his remedy and if the benefit is granted he can thereafter raise any legal issue subsequently. But at this stage to nip everything in the bud would not be called for”.
