High Court Intervenes in Political Figure's Daughter Arrest
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stepped into a legally charged situation, directing a magistrate to thoroughly examine the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Kanchanpreet Kaur, daughter of Shiromani Akali Dal's Tarn Taran candidate Sukhwinder Kaur Randhawa. The court's significant order came on Saturday during proceedings that saw strong arguments from both the petitioner and the state government.
Legal Battle Over Alleged Illegal Arrest
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj presided over a habeas corpus petition filed by Arshdeep Singh Kler, who heads the SAD's legal cell. Representing the petitioner, advocate DS Sobti presented a compelling argument before the court. He maintained that Kanchanpreet Kaur was illegally arrested despite having secured interim bail in four earlier First Information Reports (FIRs).
The petition revealed intricate details about the case timeline. According to the submission, Kaur had voluntarily joined the investigation on November 28 concerning FIR No. 144. However, on that very same day, she was allegedly clandestinely nominated in FIR No. 208, which was dated November 11. This later FIR included the serious charge under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Advocate Sobti strongly contested the application of Section 111 BNS, arguing that the statutory conditions for invoking this section were not satisfied. The provision requires prosecution in at least two cognizable cases where cognizance was taken, conditions the counsel claimed were not met in this instance.
State's Defense and Court's Directive
The Punjab government's counsel presented a contrasting perspective, opposing the habeas corpus petition vigorously. The state's argument centered around Kaur's alleged complicity, which they claimed emerged due to her husband Amritpal Singh Baath's purported involvement in as many as 23 FIRs.
The government representatives asserted that the charge under Section 111 BNS was rightly added and provided the court with assurances that the detenue would be produced before the magistrate within the mandated 24-hour period, as required by law.
After carefully considering arguments from both legal teams, Justice Bhardwaj issued a balanced order. The High Court directed the concerned magistrate to evaluate all legal objections raised by the petitioner before making any decision regarding police remand. In a significant interim arrangement, the court ordered that Kaur be kept in court custody until her counsel could make submissions, with advocate Sobti undertaking to appear by 8 pm on the hearing day.
The court explicitly stated in its order: "The state is at liberty to produce the alleged detenue before the magistrate concerned seeking her remand. However, at this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would appear personally before the learned magistrate for arguing the case on behalf of the detenue and he would reach there by 8 pm. Thus, the magistrate is directed to keep the detenue in court custody and allow D S Sobti, advocate, to make his submissions."
The legal proceedings have been scheduled for further consideration on December 5, with the state government required to file a status report before the next hearing. This case has drawn significant attention due to its political connections and the important legal questions it raises about arrest procedures and the application of new legal provisions.
