Won't arrest Param Bir Singh till June 9, Maharashtra tells HC

MUMBAI: The Maharashtra government informed the Bombay high court that it would not arrest former Mumbai police chief

Param Bir Singh

till June 9 in connection with an

FIR

registered against him by a police officer Bhimrao

Ghadge

under the Atrocities Act and other offences. But the relief comes with a condition that Singh, now with the Home Guards, presently in Chandigarh, shall cooperate with the police investigation and not pursue similar relief before the Supreme Court.

Senior counsel Darius Khambata, appearing for the Maharashtra government, gave the conditional assurance on instruction when asked by the HC vacation bench of Justices S S Shinde and N R Borkar.

Senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Singh only before HC, on instructions, stated that if protected from arrest, Singh would not raise the plea for protection in Ghadge's FIR in his petition filed and pending before SC. The HC accepted the statements and by consensus of all parties, posted Singh's quashing petition against the April 29 FIR by Ghadge to June 9, to be heard finally by a regular bench, post-vacation. At just about midnight on Friday, another HC vacation bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and S P Tavade had restrained the state from arresting Singh till 10.30 am, May 24. The special bench was assigned on Monday since it was part-heard.

Monday's hearing began on a contentious note. Khambata said Singh took advantage of HC's May 13 order SC saying HC was not giving a hearing. He took exception to para 10 of Singh's petition before the SC.

Khambata said, "What is worse is that same relief is sought, covers this same plea (against Ghadge's FIR)." He said on May 16, Singh moved SC and "they suppress that on May 13, this very petition had come up and I made a statement that state will not arrest Singh till May 21 since state was served a lengthy compilation by Singh that morning...This is very serious, if this is not an abuse of judicial process, then I do not know what is." Para 10 said Singh had filed two petitions before HC. "However the same were either not taken up on the date of hearing or was adjourned to a later date without even being given an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard."

When HC asked, "How can you say that no orders were passed (by HC)... before SC?" Jethmalani said, "I had no part to play in the SC." But he added, on instruction, that the para would be withdrawn and was an unfortunate mistake. Senior counsel Puneet Bali, who had joined in from Chandigarh in the virtual hearing, for Singh, also later apologized for the "mistake" in the para.

"We are ready to hear and decide. Please do not give the impression that HC is not hearing," said the bench. "They are right, you can't ride two horses," said Jethmalani to Bali.