Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses FIR Against Congress Leader in Arms Act Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against senior Congress functionary and former Haryana Vyapar Mandal chairman Bajrang Dass Garg, along with his son Akhil Garg. The court ruled that an individual cannot be held criminally liable simply because a third party posed with their licensed weapons for photographs that were later posted on social media platforms.
Court Cites Political Vendetta Ahead of Elections
In its detailed orders, Justice Surya Partap Singh hinted at the possibility of political vendetta in the registration of the case. The court observed, "The petitioner no. 1 (Bajrang Dass Garg), who is a political figure and a member of a political party in opposition, was involved in the present prosecution only a few months prior to the general election. The abovementioned fact-situation supports the claim of the petitioners that the present FIR has been slapped against them on account of political vendetta."
Background of the Case and Prosecution Evidence
The FIR was registered on April 20, 2019, at the Sector 5 police station in Panchkula under sections 25 (1-B) (a) and 29(B) of the Arms Act. This action followed the emergence of photographs online showing the weapons. According to the prosecution, the images were uploaded by Vikas Vaid, who worked as a driver for the Garg family.
During an inquiry, Vaid reportedly admitted to police that he had taken selfies with the revolvers while they were left unattended in the house. He subsequently posted these images on Facebook without the knowledge or consent of the owners. The court noted that the prosecution's own evidence suggested the photographs were taken by the driver, who found the firearms lying in the house.
Legal Reasoning and Court's Decision
Aggrieved by being implicated, Bajrang Dass Garg approached the High Court, contending that the case was an outcome of political vendetta. In allowing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the High Court made several key observations:
- The petitioners are valid licence holders of the weapons in question.
- There was no evidence that they had carried or used the firearms in violation of the Arms Act.
- The mere display of weapons by another person does not establish that the licensed owners unlawfully transferred possession or committed any offence under the Arms Act.
The court held, "The essential ingredients for offences under sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act were not met. There was no evidence of mens rea (criminal intent) on the part of the petitioners." It ruled that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law and ordered the FIR to be quashed.
Implications and Broader Context
This ruling underscores the importance of establishing criminal intent and proper evidence in legal cases, particularly those involving licensed firearms. The court's emphasis on the timing of the FIR registration, just months before general elections, raises questions about the potential misuse of legal mechanisms for political purposes.
The decision also highlights the need for clarity in interpreting the Arms Act, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly targeted based on actions taken by others without their knowledge. As political tensions often influence legal proceedings, this case serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding justice and preventing abuse of power.
