The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Vashisth, expressed concern over remarks made by Senior Advocate G.K. Mann during the hearing of two connected anticipatory bail petitions filed in cases registered under the IPC/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court made the observation while hearing the matter of Gursher Singh Sandhu v/s State of Punjab.The anticipatory bail pleas were filed seeking relief in separate cases where the allegations included that the petitioner and complainant were closely connected, and that, allegedly at the petitioner’s instance, the complainant used to submit complaints against different persons which were subsequently marked to the petitioner for inquiry. During the proceedings, the Court turned its attention to the role of the complainant and recorded that the State had earlier assured it would examine the complainant’s role to determine whether the alleged offences were made out against the petitioner alone or against the complainant or any other person as well.
The Court observed that despite this assurance, the State had not undertaken the exercise so far, and held that the delay in this regard was attributable to the State itself, stating: ‘Respondent State was expected to look into the said aspect on its own. However, till date no such consideration or exercise seem to have been undertaken by the respondent-State, thus, the delay on such aspect is attributable to the State itself.’
At this stage, Senior Advocate G.K. Mann, appearing for the complainant, questioned why such a direction had been issued to the State at the preliminary stage when the complainant had not been heard. The Senior Counsel further submitted that the observation made by the Court reflected ‘complete bias’ on its part.
The Court chose not to comment further on the remarks made by Senior Advocate G.K. Mann. Justice Vashisth observed that the Court would refrain from commenting upon the remarks made by Ms. G.K. Mann, learned Senior Advocate, and would rather leave it to her to examine the remarks, which were not conducive to the proceedings, after leaving the Court and upon considering the matter in its entirety.