Latest news with #PunjabandHaryanaHighCourt
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
1993 fake encounter case: 3 former cops sentenced 3-8 yrs of RI with fines, two acquitted
Thirty years after a Phagwara resident was killed in a fake police encounter in 1993, a Special CBI Court in Mohali on Saturday sentenced three former Punjab Police officers to three to eight years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fines and acquitted two constables of all charges. Delivering judgment, Special Judge-II Baljinder Singh Sra held Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Karamjit Singh, former Inspector Manjit Singh and former Sub-Inspector Gurmej Singh guilty of the crime and acquitted Constables Kashmir Singh and Harjit Singh of all charges. The court framed charges under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), read with 342 (wrongful confinement), 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — charges under IPC sections 342 and 364 were applied to certain accused. After a detailed trial, the court sentenced Karamjit Singh (then ASI) to three years of RI and a fine of Rs 50,000 under IPC Section 120-B read with Section 364 and one year of RI under IPC Section 342; Manjit Singh (then Inspector) to eight years of RI and a fine of Rs 50,000 under IPC Section 364, also 5 years of RI and a fine of Rs 50,000 under IPC Section 120-B and one year of RI under IPC Section 342; and, Gurmej Singh (then SI) to eight years of RI and a fine of Rs 50,000 under IPC Section 364, 5 years of RI and a fine of Rs 50,000 under IPC Section 120-B. The court also directed that compensation be paid to the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased, Palwinder Singh, from the fines collected from the convicted officers. Victim Palwinder Singh's daughter Bhupinder Kaur has, however, expressed her 'dissatisfaction' over the verdict. 'The sentence is too lenient given the severity of the crime,' Bhupinder said, adding that she would move the high court, seeking a harsher punishment for the accused persons. Darshan Singh, father of Palwinder Singh, alias Pappu, had filed a criminal writ petition in 1995, alleging that on the morning of March 27, 1993, ASI Karamjit Singh and other unidentified officers from the Rawalpindi police station under Phagwara tehsil in Kapurthala district, forcibly abducted his son from their home in the presence of family members and villagers. Darshan Singh alleged that Palwinder's whereabouts remained unknown thereafter. The petitioner expressed fear that his son was unlawfully detained or possibly killed in custody. Later, an FIR No. 18 dated April 5, 1993, from Sultanpur Lodhi police station surfaced, stating that Palwinder Singh had been killed in a police encounter the same day. Following a Punjab and Haryana High Court order on September 12, 2005, the CBI took over the investigation and re-registered the case. After an extensive probe, a chargesheet was filed under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 218 (public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture) of the IPC against the five accused police officers.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC strikes down Punjab formula for premature release of prisoners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that parole must be deducted from the total sentence, including remission, and not from the actual sentence, which covers only the time spent in custody while considering eligibility for premature release of prisoners. Setting aside the Punjab government's October 2024 order denying life convict Rupinder Singh's release, the court directed a fresh assessment of his case within four weeks. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who delivered the ruling on May 29, also struck down the state's 2020 formula that excluded parole from the actual sentence. 'The formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962… It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence,' the court said. The court found the state's formula—actual custody during undertrial plus custody post-conviction, minus the parole period—lacked legal backing and contradicted the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act states: 'The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.' Interpreting this, Justice Brar clarified, 'Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars. and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict. Thus, the quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number…Total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him.' The court held that Singh's case must be considered under the 1991 premature release policy, which requires 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years, including remission. Citing Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(9) SCC 598, the court said, 'The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law… It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction.' The court also referred to Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 504, noting, 'Ordinarily, the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole needs to be counted towards the total period of detention, but this condition can be curtailed by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole.' As no such legal change had been made, the court said Section 3(3) remained applicable. Rupinder Singh was convicted of murder on August 11, 2014, by the Sessions Court in Hoshiarpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was upheld by the high court on October 3, 2019, and by the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019. Seeking premature release under the 1991 policy, Singh's case was considered by the court on January 16, 2024. The state later challenged this, and on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed it to file a review petition. The key issue was whether over three years of Singh's parole should be deducted from his actual time served or from the total sentence. The state's 2020 clarification favoured the former, delaying his eligibility. Singh's lawyers, Nandan Jindal and Tushar Sabherwal, argued that the 2020 clarification was applied retrospectively and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They cited Jai Kishan @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab (2022) and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi vs. State of Punjab (2022). Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj, appearing for the state, relied on Rohan Dhungat vs. State of Goa (2023 AIR SC 265), but the court held it was not applicable due to differences in state laws. Justice Brar noted, 'The objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature… Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration.'
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC upholds discharge of Haryana probationary judge: ‘deemed confirmation a perilous concept'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of former probationary civil judge (junior division) Ankur Lal, rejecting his plea against a decade-old discharge order over integrity concerns and unsatisfactory performance. The ruling, pronounced on Thursday by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed Lal's writ petition challenging the decision of the high court's Full Court, which recommended his discharge on July 23, 2012. Acting on these recommendations, the Haryana Government issued an order on December 4, 2012, terminating his probationary services. Lal had approached the high court through Civil Writ Petition No. 17822 of 2013, seeking to quash both the Full Court's recommendation and the discharge order. He had served as a probationary civil judge from 2009 to 2012, but his service record reflected multiple adverse remarks. These included a 'B-Satisfactory' rating in 2009–10, a 'C–Below Average' rating with the remark 'integrity doubtful' in 2010–11, and a 'B–Average' rating in 2011–12, during which the Bar Association of Ferozepur Jhirka submitted an anonymous complaint against him. The Administrative Committee had recommended that his services be dispensed with, a view endorsed by the Full Court and conveyed to the government, culminating in the discharge order. In court, Lal argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, he was entitled to deemed confirmation upon completion of three years of probation, especially in light of available vacancies. The bench rejected this argument, holding that deemed confirmation requires both a permanent vacancy and satisfactory service—neither of which was applicable in Lal's case. 'There is no allegation of mala fide intent on the part of the authorities,' the court noted. Emphasising the importance of integrity in the judiciary, the bench observed in its judgment: 'The concept of probation is to enable the Employer to analyse the work, conduct and behaviour of the appointee… This power cannot be taken away… Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence…' 'If deemed confirmation is brought into play… then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit, is deemed to be confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands,' it added. The court found no procedural irregularity in the discharge decision and ordered that Lal's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) be returned to the relevant branch. With this ruling, the high court has reinforced the principle that integrity and performance during probation are non-negotiable in judicial appointments, and automatic confirmation cannot override a service record marred by adverse remarks.
India Gazette
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Bomb threat at Udyog Bhawan in Delhi, security forces on alert
ANI 30 May 2025, 23:09 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], May 30 (ANI): An alert was issued at Udyog Bhawan in New Delhi on Friday after authorities received a threat of a possible bomb attack, officials said. Security personnel immediately sprang into action as Udyog Bhawan houses several central government departments. Visuals from the spot showed thorough vehicle and visitor checks by security staff. Further details are awaited. Earlier in the day, the Haryana Civil Secretariat premises were vacated on Friday following an email warning of a bomb threat, officials said. Visuals from the spot showed security personnel making announcements via loudspeakers, urging people to evacuate the premises as a precautionary measure. Further details are awaited. This incident comes days after a similar scare on May 22, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court also received a bomb threat. The court premises were evacuated, and proceedings were suspended. 'We received a bomb threat. The lawyers and staff were asked to vacate the High Court. The court's work has been suspended until 2 pm,' Gagandeep Jammu, Secretary of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, had told ANI. (ANI)
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
CUET-PG 2025: HC sends notice to Centre, NTA, UGC as student challenges answer key
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to the central government, National Testing Agency (NTA), and University Grants Commission (UGC) on a petition challenging the final answer key and result of the CUET-PG 2025 Political Science examination. The court has directed that admissions to the course in question will remain subject to the outcome of the case. The petition has been filed by Gurshaan Singh Cheema, who appeared for the CUET-PG 2025 Political Science exam conducted on March 11. Cheema has sought the setting aside of the provisional answer key published on April 24, the final answer key released on May 6, and the result and score sheet issued the same day. The petitioner has specifically contested the correctness of Question ID 7311302427, which required arranging four constitutional amendments in chronological order. Cheema claimed the final answer key retained what he alleges is a factually incorrect answer. According to the petition, Cheema lost five marks due to the incorrect key — both due to lack of credit for the correct answer and negative marking for selecting an answer different from the one listed. This, he argues, has significantly impacted his rank and eligibility for admission. The plea seeks a revised answer key with the correct response and a fresh result based on it. The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, in its May 27 order, directed that all admissions to the course will remain subject to the outcome of the petition. The court also directed the respondents to inform both selected candidates and those appearing for counselling about the pendency of the case. The matter will next be heard on July 3. Respondents have been granted time to file their replies.
