The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently revived a contempt of court case against former Additional Sessions Judge Jatinder Walia of Kapurthala.
The judge is accused of acquitting a murder suspect despite a stay order issued by the High Court.
The decision to revive the case was made by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, who based the judgment on a sealed cover report prepared by the High Court’s Registrar (Vigilance).
The single bench found that the judge had prima facie committed contempt of court by violating the stay order.
The case originated in 2016 when the mother of the murder victim filed a petition before the High Court seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to two accused individuals.
She argued that the anticipatory bail was initially denied in 2014 but later granted in 2015 without considering the earlier dismissal. Additionally, she requested further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the recording of her statement by the Investigating Officer.
The High Court directed the trial court not to issue a final order based on the petition. Subsequently, in November 2016, the court directed the police authorities to record the petitioner’s supplementary statement and sought a status report on the actions taken. However, in August 2017, it came to the High Court’s attention that the accused had been acquitted by the trial court in violation of the stay order. As a result, the contempt of court proceedings against Judge Jatinder Walia were initiated.
The Court recognized the need for a fact-finding inquiry before reaching a final conclusion and instructed its Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct the inquiry and submit a report. Pending the inquiry, the contempt plea was disposed of, with the understanding that the petitioner could raise her concerns before the appellate court, considering the pending appeal against the acquittal and the judge’s voluntary retirement. Following the completion of the inquiry, a sealed cover report was submitted, stating, among other things, that it was difficult to believe that the judge was unaware of the stay order.
Consequently, the Court revived the contempt petition and issued notices to all relevant parties.
