Latest news with #HSBrar
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC for SOPs to combat gang related crime in Punjab, Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has ordered formulation of SOPs to combat gang related crimes in Punjab and Haryana. 'It is baffling to see that in spite of the widespread nature of this malady, no legislative framework to combat the same exists in the states of Punjab and Haryana. Addressing a similar situation in Maharashtra about two decades ago, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, was promulgated,' the HC bench of justice HS Brar said while issuing a slew of directions. The court was dealing with a petition from a Haryana resident, wherein the gaps in the manner of probe into complaints about threats from a gangster was highlighted by the petitioner. It was in April that HC had directed both the states to spell out measures being taken by them to deal with gangster culture. The court termed gang-related crime as 'fast spreading epidemic' and stressed that an unambiguous SOP is needed to be put in place to guide police officials into meaningfully helping the public. 'However, the same is lacking in both the states of Punjab and Haryana. First and foremost, it is of the utmost importance to protect and preserve the identity of the complainant. A citizen must not pay the price for speaking out against anti-social elements,' the court underlined. The court underlined that organised crime thrives on a culture of fear. 'Gangs instil a pervasive sense of threat to personal safety as well as property, which coerces individuals into compliance. This fear-driven submission further entrenches their control and creates a sense of helplessness in the citizenry,' it further said, adding that to break this vicious cycle environment must be created where people come forward to report such crimes.
Hindustan Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC orders release of 412 Punjab prisoners awaiting premature release
The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered the release of 412 Punjab prisoners, whose applications for premature release have been pending, on interim bail within two weeks. 'The rather conspicuous failure on the part of the state agencies to process the applications of such a considerable number of inmates is deeply concerning. In doing so, the applicants have been subjected to further incarceration when they may be eligible to be released. Such an undisciplined approach is symptomatic of the culture of apathy that has developed on the subject of rights and well-being of convicts,' the high court bench of justice HS Brar observed while directing Haryana and Chandigarh administration to furnish an affidavit on pending cases of premature release in the last two years, within eight weeks. The directions came as the court came to know through a December 2024 affidavit from prisons department, Punjab, that a total of 412 different cases of pre-mature release of convicts lodged in state prisons are pending consideration. The court asserted that the policy instituted by the state for premature release is equally applicable to all convicts and denial to be considered under the same directly impacts their fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 'Once eligible to be considered for premature release, according to the applicable policy, the state cannot deny them this concession without recording due reasons for the same.' 'In fact, the state is duty bound to act fairly and proceed according to the policy formulated by it in a manner that does not discriminate between similarly situated persons in absence of an intelligible differentia. Non-arbitrariness is a facet in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the state and all its agencies are required to abide by it. The state cannot indulge in cherry picking and only provide the concession of premature release to a select few out of the pool of similarly situated convicts and such approach is highly inequities,' the bench observed. It further added that the fundamental rights, which include rights to liberty and dignity, have been granted by the Constitution, and not the state for them to be withdrawn in this undignified fashion. 'These rights are inherent to all individuals by virtue of their humanity, putting them beyond the scope of arbitrary authority. The prisoners have already been punished for the crime that resulted in their conviction. Treating their applications for grant of premature release as trivial and elective, appears to be a measure of further unjustified retribution which is expressly forbidden by Article 20(3) of the Constitution,' it added. The court remarked that in doing so, the administration is keeping those deserving of and entitled to a chance at reformation, reintegration and living a meaningful life. 'Such conduct reflects a medieval mindset, suggesting stagnation in evolution of thought. The approach adopted by the state plays a key role in furthering the cause of reformative justice, and it is duty-bound to proceed in a manner that does not cause or trigger erosion of fundamental rights and promote dehumanisation,' it said. The matter has been ordered to be listed on August 8.
Hindustan Times
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
FIR for evading court notices only if jurisdictional magistrate complains: HC
A criminal case can be registered against a person evading court notices only on the complaint of a jurisdictional magistrate, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held. The high court bench of justice HS Brar quashed a criminal case for non-appearance before court, and order of declaring a person proclaimed offender by a Hisar court as it found procedural lapses in his case. 'While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness,' the bench said asserting that if a certain thing is to be done in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden, it added. In the case in hand one Vinay Kumar got embroiled in a cheque bounce case. However, subsequently, he struck a compromise with the opposite party. Somehow this fact did not come to the notice of the court hearing cheque bounce case. In March 2023, the court of judicial magistrate, Hisar declared him proclaimed offender and ordered the police to register a criminal case against him under section 174-A of IPC (offence of not appearing before the court). He had challenged the order whereby he was declared proclaimed offender and the criminal case registered pursuant to that before the high court. The high court found that the judicial magistrate, being a public servant, was required to follow the procedure, if he intended to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A. 'The proper course of action would have been to file a written complaint before the competent jurisdictional court. However, instead of adhering to this legal requirement magistrate merely forwarded a copy of its order to the police to initiate proceedings under Section 174-A, which effectively led to the registration of impugned FIR,' it said adding that given the mandatory nature and scope of Section 195 of the CRPC (prosecution for contempt of lawful authority), such an approach was in clear violation of its provisions. The court also found that the judicial magistrate had issued a proclamation straight away, without recording any reasons to indicate that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself from the process of law. Conspicuously, no summons or bailable warrants were issued prior to issuance of the proclamation, it further recorded. 'In the eventuality of his non- appearance, the presence of the accused first ought to have been secured by issuing summons or bailable warrants. The proclamation should not generally be issued at first instance. Since the proclamation was never served on the petitioner, all action taken post non-execution of proclamation stands vitiated,' the court said, quashing both PO order and criminal case.
