Last Updated on September 5, 2024 by Arti Kumari
The real estate developer from Punjab, Jarnail Bajwa, has been accused of defrauding investors in over 50 FIRs. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has stated that it will keep an eye on the proceedings against him.
One day after the Court summoned the DGP of Punjab to inquire about the Punjab Police’s inaction against Bajwa & Bajwa was taken into custody. The court had requested information about the cases filed against the developer and the progress of the police investigation.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, “…the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted is the sole wisdom of the investigating agency but as a guardian of the Constitution, the Court will monitor the action taken ensuring that it is completed at the earliest without any further delay, as is evident from record furnished before this Court on various dates in the form of affidavit furnished by the Senior police officials of the State, wherefrom it could be easily inferred that there is already inordinate delay in the proceedings at its end in almost all the cases.”
During the hearing of a petition brought by a Kuldeepak Mittal, a partner in a firm with Bajwa, these observations were made. The petitioner argued that the High Court had revoked Jarnail Singh’s bail by a judgment dated October 20, 2023. However, no arrest procedure had been started as of yet.
When Bajwa was unexpectedly discovered watching his case proceedings on video conference, the court ordered him to provide information about all of his assets during the prior hearing. Bajwa was declared a proclaimed criminal in 2022.
The Supreme Court had stayed Bajwa’s arrest, so he is not required to appear in person, the counsel representing Bjawal informed the court during the matter’s resumed hearing on August 28. The court had inquired about Bjawal’s whereabouts and why he had not appeared before the court despite specific instructions.
The counsel representing Bjawal was informed that the Supreme Court had stayed Bajwa’s arrest and that he was not required to appear in person when the matter was being heard again on August 28. The court had asked the attorney representing Bjawal about his whereabouts and why he had not appeared before the court despite specific instructions.
Additionally, the attorney for Bajwa stated that the man required fifteen days to appear in court. The justification for not appearing since the directives’ first date was deemed by the Court to be “absolutely vague, having no basis and cannot be considered as a cogent and plausible reason for disobeying the directions of this Court.
“No individual can be granted such a liberty from a court of law, especially someone like respondent No. 4 (Bajwa), who is a repeat offender and is not entitled to any discretionary relief or leniency at this time,” the court declared.The Court further stated that participation in the inquiry was a requirement for the Supreme Court’s granting of the arrest stay. “Respondent-State as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 have admitted that he has not yet joined the investigation, therefore, the question of cooperation with the investigation does not arise at all,” it observed.
Additionally, as stated by Justice Moudgil, the DGP Punjab “candidly admitted the failure and laxity of law enforcing agency on this aspect.”
The senior lawyer for Bajwa argued in the current session that since he had already been arrested, the petition was no longer valid, but the court dismissed this claim.
The judge stated that the prayer in the current petition is directed not only at (Bajwa) but also against all of the accused. State counsel claimed that one accused person “is still at large,” so the court has requested an additional two weeks to be informed of the actions taken and the conclusion of the investigation.
The Court postponed the hearing until September 17, noting that the State had requested more time to inform the Court of the actions taken in the investigation into Bajwa.
Mr. R.K. Jaswal, Advocate representing the petitioner.
A.G., Punjab; Mr. ADS Sukhija, Addl.
Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, and Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr.
Advocates Mr. G.S. Hundal and Mr. Ankush Chauhan
Respondent No. 5’s advocates are Mr. Jasjeet Brar and Mr. Robindeep Singh.
Case Title : Kuldeepak Mittal v. State of Punjab & Ors.
