The Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded legal costs to the tune of Rs 1.5 lakhs to a man suffering from 80% locomotion disability. The man was booked due to “mistaken identity” under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for allegedly fleeing with illicit liquor in his vehicle.
Justice Arun Monga also mandated the police to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the case. The High Court has directed the State of Punjab to initially pay the litigation costs to the petitioner amounting to 1.5 lakhs. The court, however, noted that this would be later recovered from the erring police officials who would be found guilty after the conclusion of the inquiry by SSP, Pathankot.
Justice Arun Monga said, “It is considered desirable that the petitioner, who has suffered unnecessarily at the hands of erring police officials and was forced into litigation first before learned Sessions Court and then before this Court, be awarded at least the litigation costs. Same are assessed at Rs.50,000/- for litigation before learned Court below and Rs.1,00,000/- for this Court, thus a total Rs.1,50,000/-.”
The High Court added, “The same be paid from the State exchequer as of now, to be recovered subsequently from the erring police officials, subject to the outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot.”
The High Court gave these directions while hearing the petitioner Kulwinder Singh’s plea. Apparently, in September 2023, he was named as one of the accused in the illicit liquor trade case under Sections 61, 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with 120B of the IPC.
The prosecution alleged that Singh fled away from the scene when the police tried to catch him during a surprise check of the vehicle he was driving. According to them, they found a large amount of liquor, which violated the Punjab Excise Act, of 1914.
However, the court found that the petitioner was incapable of driving any vehicle due to Post-Polio Residual Paralysis of lower limbs. It found that the petitioner is wheelchair-bound owing to his disability and he was unable to even stand on his own, let alone walk or run.
According to the FIR, the other accused who were apprehended in this case revealed the name of the fleeing person as Kulwinder Singh, the petitioner.
The Court noted that SHO Ms. Manjeet Kaur along with ASI Sartaj Singh were present in the Court and offered their unconditional apology for the faux pas that occurred in the case due to the mistaken identity of the petitioner.
The state’s counsel submitted that the “false name of the petitioner” was given in the “disclosure statement of co-accused” Charanjit Singh, who was arrested on the spot. Apparently, this led to the petitioner being named as one of the prime accused in the FIR in this case.
Regarding the apologies by SHO and ASI, Justice Monga remarked, “To say the least, their belated apology, at this stage seems to have been tendered to save themselves from the adverse consequences contemplated at the time of passing the order dated 05.10.2023, when the IO was very much present in this Court and said order was dictated in his presence.”
The anticipatory bail petition was filed before the Sessions Court at Pathankot in September. Back then, the contents of the plea were completely known to the police officials. Highlighting this, the court observed that it was rather “unfathomable” that even then no attempt was made to verify with regard to the identity of the petitioner and/or his being 80% incapacitated and wheelchair-bound.
The court noted, “On the contrary, a completely opposite stand was taken before the learned Sessions Court at the time of arguments.”
The bench observed that on the same day, at 03:20 pm, during the pre-arrest bail hearing, ASI Sartaj Singh recorded a DDR. It stated that the petitioner was inadvertently named as the prime accused and, that he is actually innocent.
The court asked, “Why the said DDR was not handed over to Sessions Court when the matter was being heard in Court on the very same day and, if the same was not possible, why the Court was not verbally informed that the petitioner had already been found innocent so as to render the anticipatory bail petition infructuous on that ground alone, instead of being dismissed on merits.”
The court also directed that SSP shall conduct an administrative inquiry into the entire matter. The court directed that in case he finds the aforesaid statements of SHO/ASI made before this Court to be false, “then action be taken against the delinquent officials for deliberately making a false statement including the institution of appropriate proceedings.”
The Court instructed that an inquiry report should be submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) who passed the order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner. It added that after considering the report, ASJ shall, “if deemed appropriate, take further steps to register a complaint under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the delinquent police officials who have led to the whole melee.”
