Multiple inquiries on same allegations violate Article 21: Punjab & Haryana HC
Last Updated on January 6, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
Introduction:
In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ajay Kumar, a junior engineer from Khanna, accused of embezzling ₹3.17 lakh in a tender of ₹4.20 lakh. The case concerned an allegation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the petitioner objected that multiple investigations of the same allegation violated his rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Delivering the judgment, Justice Sandeep Moudgil emphasized the importance of protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly and adequately without subjecting the petitioner to undue harassment. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, which was an important basis for granting bail.
Arguments from both sides:
Ajay Kumar, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Bipan Ghai, argued that multiple investigations based on the same allegations are against the principles of justice and law as per the notification issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab on 1st April, 2008. of Jaswinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [CRM-M-18244-2008] petitioner argued that repeated investigations not only result in harassment but also delay the conclusion of investigations and legal processes. Furthermore, Kumar has shown good intentions by agreeing to join and cooperate with the investigation. On the contrary, State Counsel, Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, opposing the bail plea, argued that the charges against Kumar are serious and involve public funds and corruption. The state argued that a detention hearing was necessary to reveal the extent of the embezzlement and the roles of others allegedly involved in the conspiracy.
Judgment of the court:
Justice Sandeep Moudgil carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. The court stated that the multiple investigations of the same allegations were prima facie unjustified and constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh, the court emphasized that an FIR must precede any formal investigation and that initiating a repeated investigation without registering an FIR is against the law. The court also referred to the Jaswinder Singh case and reiterated that multiple investigations could be a source of abuse and harassment of the accused as well as delay in justice. Judge Moudgil noted that the appellant had demonstrated a bona fide intention to cooperate with the investigation, which further negated the need for a custodial hearing. Further, the court noted that the allegations leveled against Ajay Kumar were primarily based on records that could be verified without requiring his custody.
The State presented no compelling reason why custodial interrogation was necessary. Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail to Ajay Kumar, ensuring that he remains available for investigation and fully cooperates with the authorities.
