Punjab and Haryana HC: For physical presence in private dispute, Sidhu’s security expenses must be borne by the complainant, not state
The Punjab and Haryana High Court which allowed the plea of former Punjab minister Navjot Singh Sidhu for appearing in Ludhiana court via video-conferencing has said that 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 have to be provided to him during his movement from Patiala to Ludhiana – where the trial court is situated – and return to Patiala as well. Also, the expenses of the witness shall have to be borne by the complainant, and not by the State.
Sidhu is currently lodged in Patiala Central Jail in a road rage case. A court in Ludhiana had summoned Sidhu as a witness in the harassment case against his party colleague and former minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu.
The case against Ashu was filed by dismissed DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon, who alleged that Ashu had harassed and intimidated him during the inquiry into the alleged CLU (change of land use) scam in Ludhiana.
The file containing the probe report of the case, which was submitted by Sekhon, is now reportedly “missing” from the office of Punjab’s local government department. The Ludhiana court summoned Sidhu as a witness as it was during his tenure as the local government minister that the inquiry was marked and concluded.
Sidhu has been citing “threat to life being a Z+ protectee” and “security concerns” as the reasons for not appearing physically in the Ludhiana court.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga, in a detailed order, has said, “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.” The HC said the petitioner is not even an opposite party or arraigned as an accused in the complaint. There is nothing to show that the application of the petitioner has been filed with an intention to impede a fair trial or delay proceedings or that it is actuated by any mala fide intention in seeking his examination through video-conferencing.
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.”
