Setting aside Punjab and Haryana High Court order, Supreme Court noted that the liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away. High Court had dismissed a petition filed by a man on the grounds that his lawyer was absent throughout the four hearings.
SC bench comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, and Justice Indira Banerjee observed, “The high court, in our view, was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant’s advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions.”
“Since the revision before the high court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the high court ought to have appointed an amicus curiae in the absence of counsel, who has been engaged by the legal services authority, Rohtak. The liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner,” stated SC in its November 16 order. The apex court set aside the February 11 and July 16 order of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
On February 11, the High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the man challenging his conviction. “Since the revision before the high court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the high court ought to have appointed an amicus curiae in the absence of counsel, who has been engaged by the legal services authority, Rohtak. The liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner,” said the petition.
Later on July 16, the court had dismissed the appeal filed by the man for the restoration of plea stating that there is no ground for restoration. Then, he challenged the High Court order in top court through his counsel M K Ghosh.
In January 2015, the man was convicted for an offence punishable under the Arms Act and was awarded three years of imprisonment by a magisterial court.
Then in 2017, a session court upheld his conviction and he approached the High Court afterward. During the pendency of his case, he was accorded bail in April 2018.
The top court restored his revision and said, “Since during the pendency of the special leave petition, the appellant was admitted to bail by this court and the appellant was on bail during the pendency of the revision before the high court, the order enlarging the appellant on bail shall continue to remain in operation pending the disposal of the revision by the high court. The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of the revision.”
