Aastha Thakur
Published on: 1 November 2022 at 10:42 IST
Former Punjab minister Navjot Singh Sidhu was given permission to appeal via video-conferencing by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
According to HC, the petitioner is under Z+ security cover, and if his physical presence is required in Ludhiana court as a witness in an alleged defamation case, then the same security cover shall be provided to him during his movement from Patiala to Ludhiana – where the trial court is located – and return to Patiala.
Sidhu is not appearing physically in court as he is under apprehension for his life and also for security reasons.
Regarding his concerns, the single judge bench Justice Arun Monga, declared in his order that, “Trial court fell in grave error to observe that ‘so what, security cover can be provided by the State’. However, it remained oblivious as to why should public exchequer be burdened by asking the State to bear the expense of complainant’s witness in a totally private dispute qua alleged defamation of the complainant at the hands of another person against whom the private complaint has been filed.”
For a lawsuit concerning road rage, Sidhu is currently being held in Patiala Central Jail. Sidhu had been called before a Ludhiana court as a witness in the harassment case involving his party’s former minister and party member Bharat Bhushan Ashu.
Dismissed DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon filed the case against Ashu on the grounds that Ashu had intimidated and harassed him while the investigation into the alleged Ludhiana CLU (change of land use) fraud was ongoing.
According to reports, the file containing the investigation report for the case, which Sekhon provided, is presently “missing” from the local government department’s office in Punjab. Because the investigation was initiated and concluded when Sidhu served as the local government minister, the Ludhiana court called him as a witness.
According to the HC, the petitioner is not even listed as a defendant or an accused in the case. There is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner’s request for his examination via video conference was filed with the objective to prevent a fair trial, delay proceedings, or otherwise contravene the law.
Citing the HC Rules and Orders, Volume III, Chapter 9, the HC bench said, “The State is not under any obligation like the present case to bear the expenses of the witnesses of the complainant but it is the complainant, who has to bear the same.”