CHANDIGARH: The Supreme Court has directed Mr, A.S. Bains, a retired judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, to cooperate in the early disposal of his trial under Terrorists ‘and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act while dismissing a writ petition and a Special Leave Petition filed by, his wife.

In the same case in 1992, the Supreme Court while taking into consideration the office held by Mr. Bains, had passed an order following which he was released on bail without examining the condition prescribed for grant of bail under such cases.

A Division Bench of Mr. Justice N.P. Singh and Mr. Justice S.C, Sen while last month dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition and a Special Leave Petition filed by Mrs. Rachpal Kaur Bains, wife of Mr. Bains, under Article 32, also ordered Taking notice of the contention of Punjab Government that charges could not be framed ‘Against the accused as they were avoiding appearance in the court, the Bench said, “We make it clear that it will be Open to the designated court to take Such steps as permissible under law in the event of any of the accused not Cooperating with the trial.

Mr. Bains was arrested in 1992 following certain seditious speeches made by him. Protesting against the arrest of a former judge, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association had observed a strike, and alleged that Mr. Bains was handcuffed. Subsequently, his wife moved the

Supreme Court which led to his released on bail. Now, while dismissing the petition, the judges recalled the court’s earlier orders in August 1992, following which Mr, Bains was released on bail, Attomey General of India and Advocate General, Punjab, acted to facilitate the bail by impressing upon the administration not to opposite before the special designated court in view of the particular and special circumstances of the case. However, such ‘steps should not amount to a concession by implication that “there are grounds for believing that he is not guilty.”

The Bench observed that since the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial’ is pending before the designated Court, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending before the Supreme Court.

Article extracted from this publication >>  February 7, 1996