HC: Court can’t enter into guesswork about probe

HC: Court can’t enter into guesswork about probe

Ajay.Sura@timesgroup.com

Chandigarh:  21.11.2021

The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that it cannot pass any order on a plea to direct the investigating agency, which has summoned a person as witness in some cases, to give advance notice to the person in case he is required to be arrested.

“If such petition is entertained, then it could open up Pandora’s box in as much as every person apprehending arrest would come to the court and file a petition under section 482 CrPc in order to enquire from the investigating authorities or police authorities as to “what they are going to do next”, HC has held. The court was also of the view that intervention of the court in such cases can seriously prejudice the investigation.

Justice Vikas Bahl passed these orders while dismissing a petition filed by Punjab PWD work inspector Harmandeep Singh. The petitioner has been summoned by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under section 160 CrPc as witness in connection with Punjab’s narco-terror case involving Hizbul Mujahideen. HC was informed that he has apprehension that when he would appear before NIA in pursuance of the notice dated August 8, 2021, he would be arrested and thus, he had sought direction for giving him an advance notice in case he was required to be detained or arrested. Opposing his plea, NIA contended that in this case, the petitioner had not challenged the notice under Section 160 CrPc and is indirectly seeking anticipatory bail which even as per the case of the petitioner, could not have been granted.

NIA also submitted that the petitioner wants HC to enter into guesswork as to what would happen in the course of investigation and in order to preempt the same, the present petition has been filed.

It is submitted that such a petition is legally not maintainable. It is also sought to be argued by relying upon some documents, it is apparent that the petitioner has falsely stated in his petition, on affidavit, that on15.08.2021, the petitioner was on duty on the occasion of the Independence Day, whereas documents from the employer/senior of the petitioner would show that he was on leave.

After hearing both the parties, Justice Bahl observed that as per the facts on record, only a notice under Section160 CrPc has been issued to the petitioner for appearance before the NIA. “This court cannot possibly enter into the realm of conjectures and surmises and foresee by guesswork as to what would be the further course adopted by the investigating agency. At one stage, learned counsel for the petitioner was wanting that the counsel for NIA should disclose as to whether they wish to arrest the petitioner or not… Moreover, the offences alleged to have been committed in the present case are very serious and thus, NIA is to be given a free hand to investigate, so that all the culprits can be brought to book and all the material which is necessary can be collected. The NIA informed that the main accused who has been arrested with Rs 29 lakh in his possession is in fact an over ground worker of banned terrorist organization Hizb-Ul-Mujahideen (HM),” observed the court.