According to the High Court, it is unlawful to detain an accused person without charge or bond

The Punjab and Haryana High Court decided today that the trial court’s hasty, procedurally-ignored decision to place an accused person on bail in jail amounted to his unlawful incarceration, less than a week after the accused person was granted bail. The claim was made when the high court pressed the presiding officer—who had issued the order—for an explanation. We’ve asked him to identify the exact legal clause that allowed for the order to be issued.

Judge Karamjit Singh of the high court issued his ruling in response to a plea that the detainee’s father, Muhammad Fiyaz, brought via attorney Shivansh Malik, against the Punjab and Haryana High Court and other defendants.

Judge Karamjit Singh noted that a report on the case had been received from the District and Sessions Judge’s office in Rohtak, in accordance with the earlier decision dated February 14 that the Bench had made. This was in relation to the habeas corpus petition that was scheduled for a resumed hearing.

Justice Karamjit Singh also noted, making reference to the report, that Aas Mohammad, the inmate, had previously been released on bond. However, the trial court abruptly detained him without canceling his bail or surety bonds in an order dated February 12.

The petitioner’s son, Aas Mohammad, was unlawfully detained as a result of the order, which cannot be upheld since it was not issued in compliance with the law. Given the circumstances, Justice Karamjit Singh declared that Aas Mohammad, the petitioner’s son, who is now being held in the district prison in Rohtak, is to be freed from detention right away if the police do not need him in any other criminal case.

The presiding officer of the court that issued the order on February 12 was instructed by Justice Karamjit Singh to provide an explanation of “which provisions of law, such an order was passed whereby the accused person, who was on bail, was sent to custody without cancelling his bail bonds/surety bonds” before concluding the case.

Judge Karamjit Singh concluded the case by making it plain that the high court Registry was to demand for an explanation by March 18.