Second judge recuses from hearing Umranangal’s plea
DID NOT CITE ANY REASON FOR THE RECUSAL; EARLIER, ON TUESDAY THE BENCH OF JUSTICE HS SIDHU HAD RECUSED FROM HEARING THE CASE
CHANDIGARH: A second judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday recused from hearing the anticipatory bail plea of suspended inspector general of police (IGP) Paramraj Singh Umranangal in Behbal Kalan firing case.
Presiding over a single-judge bench, justice Deepak Sibal on Wednesday ordered that case be listed before some other bench.
However, he did not cite any reason for the recusal.
He also requested the registry that since the petition pertains to the liberty of the petitioner, orders for listing be obtained so that it could be listed on Thursday. Earlier, on Tuesday the bench of justice HS Sidhu had recused from hearing the case without recording any reason for the recusal.
The matter has now been assigned to the bench of justice Raj Mohan Singh for Thursday.
The Faridkot trial court has already dismissed his plea. Umranangal is accused in the case registered at the Baja Khana police station in Faridkot.
The case was registered on October 21, 2015, a week after two protesters were allegedly killed in police firing at Behbal Kalan in the aftermath of incidents of sacrilege reported at Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala.
Former DGP Sumedh Singh Saini and Umranangal were chargesheeted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Punjab Police on January 15 in this case.
Meanwhile, the high court bench of justice Arun Kumar Tyagi extended interim protection to former DGP Saini from arrest till further orders.
The matter has been listed for March 16 now. The order was passed in 2018 plea in which he had sought a blanket bail from arrest alleging victimization by the present Congress government in the state.
The high court extended September 23, 2020 order in which it was directed that a notice of seven days be given to Saini if the state contemplates to arrest him in a criminal case for the time period of his entire service.
Saini is being probed by state agencies in Sacrilege violence cases of 2015 and murder of a former bureaucrat’s son in 1991.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has initiated contempt proceedings against a Haryana chief judicial magistrate, observing that prime facie he had violated court orders, which warranted disciplinary action.
The high court bench of justice Manoj Bajaj, while seeking response from Yamunanagar chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Arvind Kumar observed that the officer passed the order in question despite the HC directions being ‘absolutely clear and unambiguous’.
The CJM, in his January 13 order, had dismissed the plea of one Puran Chand Sharma, who upon the HC’s directions had approached the CJM court seeking release of the ₹1.1 lakh deposited by him in a criminal case. The judicial officer dismissed the plea for release of money observing that the February 2014 order, in which Sharma was asked to deposit the money ‘carried prohibition against the release of the amount till the disposal of the case, instead of trial’.
Justice Bajaj observed that after a court order, Sharma had deposited the requisite amount on March 3, 2014 with the trial court and was granted bail. As per conditions imposed at the time, it was ordered that the amount deposited would be finally adjusted against the claim of the complainant against the petitioner (Sharma), if any, in civil litigation. The trial ended with Sharma’s acquittal and thereafter, Sharma moved an application before the high court for directions to the CJM court to release the deposited amount. Acting on the same, the high court on November 6, 2020 had ordered that the amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him. However, the CJM dismissed the plea filed by Sharma for release of the said amount.
“..prima facie this court is of the opinion that the chief judicial magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, while passing the impugned order has not only shown judicial indiscipline warranting disciplinary action, but has deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court and this amounts to contempt of Court,” justice Bajaj observed, issuing notice of motion on plea for February 25.
The bench held that even though notices were yet to be served to Sharma against the appeal filed in that acquittal case, the trial court declined the prayer compelling him to seek clarification/ direction from the high court. Apart from it, the condition contained in the February 2014 order was imposed in a pre-arrest bail matter and could not have been stretched beyond the conclusion of the trial, the bench added.