High Court raps Punjab Police for ‘inefficiency’ in murder case

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 2

Rapping the Punjab Police for inadequacy following its failure to nab an accused in a murder case even after lapse of two years since the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that claims of efforts being made to arrest him, prima facie, were not genuine.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi also directed the forwarding of the order’s copy to the state Director General of Police for information and necessary action. The admonition and direction came on a petition filed by Ajay Kumar against the state of Punjab for anticipatory bail in an FIR registered on June 28, 2018, for murder and other offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and provisions of the Arms Act at Jodhewal police station in Ludhiana district.

No genuine effort to nab accused

The averment that efforts were made to arrest the petitioner, prima facie, does not seem to be genuine. — High Court

Justice Sethi asserted even though his first anticipatory bail application was dismissed in November 2018, the petitioner did not surrender and was also declared a proclaimed offender. The order was set aside by the High Court on technicalities, but the fact remained that he was evading law even after his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Justice Sethi added: “The conduct of the petitioner is such that he is evading arrest for the last more than two-and-a-half years and his custodial interrogation is necessary to find out the source of weapon, which has been used in the incident, wherein a person lost his life...No ground is made out to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”

Before parting with the order, Justice Sethi asserted the inefficiency of the police was required to be commented upon. For the last two years, the petitioner was evading arrest and the police authority in its affidavit only mentioned that efforts were made to arrest the petitioner, which were to no avail.

The petitioner, on the one hand, was evading arrest. On the other hand, he successfully challenged the order declaring him a proclaimed offender and filed a second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail after two years of rejection of his first anticipatory bail plea. “This averment that efforts were made to arrest the petitioner, prima facie, does not seem to be genuine,” Justice Sethi concluded.