More than three years after police firing at Behbal Kalan village left two persons dead, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually indicated that the police action was not unjustified.
Justice Ramendra Jain has asserted the court was conscious of the fact that two persons had died in the incident, but the police party could not be solely blamed for it as no official would ever dare to fire indiscriminately upon human beings without provocation from the mob.
The assertion came on an anticipatory bail petition filed against the state by police official Amarjit Singh Kalar through counsel Sant Pal Singh Sidhu. Justice Jain asserted the court, after giving thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, was of view that it was the state’s duty to maintain law and order.
Whenever about 500 to 600 protestors gathered at a particular place, it was impossible that they would not create ruckus or chaos and disturb law and order. In the instant case, some of the protestors were having swords and other weapons. Three police vehicles were set ablaze. To control such a situation, it was quite obvious and natural for the police to swing into action for dispersing the mob.
Justice Jain added the petitioner’s role was under investigation. His name appeared after three years of the incident, that too, before second inquiry commission headed by Justice Ranjit Singh. As on date, no recovery was to be made from the petitioner. As such, his custodial interrogation was not required.
Fixing the case for May 21, Justice Jain added the petitioner, in the meantime, would join the investigation and be present as and when called for. In the event of arrest, he would be admitted to interim bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting /investigating officer.
Sidhu had earlier told the court that the petitioner was allotted .38 bore revolver. But the injuries were not found to have been caused from shots fired from .38 bore revolver. The petitioner had been falsely been implicated on the basis of statement of complainant Beant Singh.
He had earlier appeared before commission headed by Justice Jora Singh and, thereafter, before Justice Markandey Katju. But he did not name the petitioner. Two co-accused of the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail. As such, he too may also be granted the concession of anticipatory bail, Sidhu added.
‘No official will fire without provocation’
Justice Ramendra Jain asserted the court was conscious of the fact that two persons had died in the incident, but the police team could not be solely blamed for it as no official would ever dare to fire indiscriminately upon human beings without provocation from the mob.
The assertion came on an anticipatory bail petition filed against the state by police official Amarjit Singh Kalar through counsel Sant Pal Singh Sidhu.
