The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized a Special Court judge in Bathinda for rejecting a bail application in a drug-related case, despite a prior stay order issued by the High Court. The High Court bench described the judge’s order as a reflection of a complete lack of judicial application of mind, potentially undermining the presiding officer’s legal competence.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that Justice Surya Partap Singh, while allowing the bail petition, ordered the transmission of the judge’s order to the Administrative Judge of the Bathinda Sessions Division for review. The bench remarked, “Before parting ways with this order, it shall be appropriate to note here that the order dated April 17, passed by the Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, is the example of total non-application of judicial mind, casting a shadow on the judicial acumen of the presiding officer.”
The legal proceedings stem from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on February 10, 2019, at the Dayalpura police station in Bathinda district. The FIR was filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, following the seizure of 15,500 tablets of Tramadol from an individual. During the subsequent investigation, two more individuals were implicated in the case.
Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the trial concluded with the conviction of one accused and the acquittal of the other two. The judgment, delivered on May 9, 2023, included adverse comments from the Special Judge concerning the role of a petitioner who had been examined as a defence witness during the trial. The trial court had noted that the police investigation into the defence witness’s role was inadequate and that the witness had admitted to supplying the contraband to the accused without issuing any bill. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, for an investigation into the witness’s role and appropriate action under the law.
Challenging these observations and directions, the witness approached the High Court with a separate petition. The High Court bench noted that the additional accused had been summoned without invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, the bench had stayed the operation of the May 9, 2023, judgment, specifically concerning the directions issued against the witness.
Upon taking up the matter, Justice Surya Partap Singh highlighted that the Special Judge had dismissed the bail plea filed by the petitioner-witness despite the High Court’s March 24 order that had stayed the operation of the relevant directions. The counsel representing the petitioner argued that the prosecution itself was initiated based on directions that had already been stayed by the High Court. They contended that the trial court’s refusal to grant bail was a direct consequence of a failure to apply judicial mind and a misinterpretation of the applicable legal principles.
Accepting these arguments, Justice Surya Partap Singh stated, “In view of the fact that at the initial stage any challan against the petitioner was not filed by the investigating agency and that the operation of order dated May 9, 2023, with regard to prosecution of petitioner has been stayed, it is hereby held that there cannot be any justification in detaining the petitioner in judicial custody.”
The court further held that the trial court had committed a significant error by failing to recognize that the basis for the petitioner’s prosecution had effectively vanished due to the stay order. As a result, the court concluded that the petitioner’s detention in judicial custody was illegal.
The High Court bench found the petition to be deserving of allowance and granted the petitioner relief without delving into the merits of the case itself, emphasizing the procedural lapse by the lower court.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
