Thread by @barandbench

Supreme Court to shortly hear an anticipatory bail plea filed by former Punjab Director General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini---an accused in the 1991 Balwant Singh Multani murder case

#SupremeCourt
#anticipatorybail
@PunjabPoliceInd

Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi: interest of the state is evident in this case. I will show you how gross and vindictive is the attitude of the case.

Senior Adv Rohatgi states the career credentials of Sumedh Singh Saini: :"he is a highly decorated officer. There are scores of death threats on this man. He took part in hundreds of operations and busted terror networks. When he was a DGP, he lodged five cases against current CM

Rohatgi: nothing could be done when he was in service. my client was handpicked to serve as SSP in Chandigarh. there was a bomb blast in 1991 in Chandigarh and the ideas was to assassinate Saini. FIR was registered in Chandigarh Sector 17. Balwant Multani was arrested in Dec'91

Rohatgi: It is the case of Multani's father that Multani was tortured by the petitioner. It was the case of state then that Multani escaped and was never found. He was not seen since 1991. Now Multanis father filed a habeas corpus in the HC. state affidavit said Multani escaped

Rohatgi: Writ was disposed off in 1991. Multani was declared as a proclaimed offender. Bomb blast appeals went to HC, the HC in 2007 while disposing of the appeals at the request of father of Multani directed CBI to register a second FIR regarding Multanis disappearance.

Rohatgi: second FIR was ordered by the HC. State came to SC and said there cant be a second FIR in the case. SC stayed further probe in CBI FIR. SC quashed the FIR in 2011. state said in appeal that the officer was highly decorated officer.

Rohatgi: In 2018 the officer retired. He apprehended that many terrorists and hundreds of people may file cases against him. he moved HC saying that if any case is registered against him then 7 days notice needs to be given to him. HC granted this relief to the retired person

Rohatgi: On MAY 6, 2020, an FIR is registered at the instance of the brother of Multani as father died in 2014. SC verdict had said that though second FIR is quashed, the father was allowed to pursue an independent remedy.

Rohatgi: On May 5 Multanis brother filed an FIR saying he was scared till petitioner was DGP. He says in 2015 one police had revealed that Saini was torturing people. But he kept quiet and filed complaint only in May 2020.

Rohatgi: Police records that the SC verdict is only a technical aspect of the case. Thus FIR was registered against Saini and two other officers who had allegedly tortured Multani in 1991. My client gets anticipatory bail by a detailed judgment on May 11, 2020 by sessions court

Rohatgi: By the 30-page judgment my client was given anticipatory bail. the trial judge noted that it may be a case of political vendetta. There is no material against me in 29 years. the 2 officers who got bail with Saini turned approvers.

Rohatgi: the police converted Section 364 to 302 IPC charge.

Rohatgi: Trial judge said there cannot be three FIRs in the same after 30 years. The trial judge noted SSP tenure was not covered in 2018 HC order

Justice Bhushan: please finalise your submissions and formulate it

Rohatgi: there cannot be third FIR in same incident. SC too recorded that second fir cannot be registered. there is no material apart from a self serving statement by an accused similarly placed on me who was granted anticipatory bail. this is a case of political vendetta

Rohatgi: state of Punjab has no jurisdiction in the case as the alleged torture was in Sector 17 Chandigarh and thus Punjab has no jurisdiction as Chandigarh is a UT. State cannot add Section 302 to FIR without leave of trial judge.

Rohatgi: This judgment under challenge borders on perversity.

Rohatgi : see how the HC has dealt with the SC judgment in my favour. The HC notes that the first FIR was quashed on the basis of misdemeanor. It says the petitioner was doing subterfuge. subterfuge after these many years of service?

Senior Adv Gopal Subramanium appears for the state

SC: Will you like to file a reply:? there is no question of interim orders in this case.

Rohatgi: ofcourse there is a case for interim order

Rohatgi: There has been firing in Faridkot and for that Saini is held responsible while he was in Chandigarh. This is the vendetta of the case

SC asks Gopal Subramanium how long will reply be taken to be filed

Subramanium: This probe is being supervised by the present DGP

Subramanium: I need three weeks to file a reply

Senior Adv KV Vishwanathan: I too need time to file reply. There is a need for closure for the family. it is no case that my brother was involved in the assasination

Justice MR Shah: HC says Section 256 crpc is applicable. Please show how is it applicable as it will be applicable only when there is a case pending. please reply on this too

Let counter affidavit be filed in three weeks. Rejoinder be filed in one week. List after 4 weeks

Rohatgi: Now my client says third case has been registered. How will one man fight against the might of the state. the vendetta needs to be stopped. Why can probe continue on the statement of the approver. Wht the state is doing to me in unfair. How many cases should I file

SC: challenge it

Rohatgi: every day I will challenge a new case.

SC: We are issuing notice. Let them reply. You can bring this all in record when you file the rejoinder.

SC: Since the matter has not proceeded in last one month, please don't file new cases. Withdraw the latest case

Subramanium: I will make a statement in the next hearing.