Mohali Court Dismisses Vigilance Bureau's Application to Restrict Majithia's Entry into Punjab
A trial court in Mohali has delivered a significant ruling by rejecting an application filed by the Punjab vigilance bureau (VB) that sought to impose a bail condition barring Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) functionary Bikram Singh Majithia from entering Punjab. The court, presided over by ADJ special judge Hardip Singh, observed that Majithia is a resident of the state and cannot be debarred from entering it, deeming such a condition unreasonable.
Court's Rationale and Constitutional Considerations
In its detailed order, the court emphasized that the judgments relied upon by the prosecution were not applicable to the facts of this case. It noted that even after being released in an earlier case, there were no allegations against Majithia that he violated any conditions imposed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while residing in Punjab. This precedent played a crucial role in the court's decision.
Furthermore, the court addressed the vigilance bureau's plea to restrict Majithia from making statements in the media or on social media. It invoked Article 19 of the Constitution, which grants liberty of speech and expression to any person. The court stated that this liberty cannot be taken away except under the conditions mentioned in Article 19(2), thereby rejecting the prosecution's request as unconstitutional.
Prosecution's Arguments and Defence's Counter
The Punjab vigilance bureau had argued that Majithia is a highly influential person who could potentially influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, and obstruct the ongoing investigation. The prosecution expressed concerns about a parallel media narrative affecting the administration of justice and alleged that Majithia displayed a threatening attitude towards investigating officers and others connected with the case at the time of his arrest and thereafter.
In response, Advocate H S Dhanoa, appearing for Majithia, opposed all allegations by the vigilance bureau, terming them arbitrary. The defence highlighted that the prosecution's requests were overly restrictive and not supported by legal precedent.
Legal Observations and Bail Conditions
Legal observers note that courts generally impose bail conditions to ensure the accused's presence during trial and prevent interference with evidence. However, restrictions that effectively bar an accused from residing in their home state are rarely upheld unless backed by exceptional circumstances. The Mohali court's ruling aligns with this principle, focusing on reasonable safeguards rather than punitive measures.
The court acknowledged that the matter remains under trial and emphasized the need to ensure compliance with lawful bail conditions aimed at preserving the integrity of the proceedings. While the prosecution prayed for stringent safeguards to secure a free and fair trial, the court declined to impose the specific conditions requested, instead opting for a balanced approach that respects constitutional rights and legal norms.
This decision underscores the judiciary's role in balancing prosecution concerns with individual liberties, particularly in high-profile cases involving political figures. It sets a precedent for how bail conditions are framed in similar situations, prioritizing fairness and legal propriety over restrictive measures that may infringe on fundamental rights.
