The Punjab and Haryana High Court was left puzzled this week as it came across a plea seeking anticipatory bail for an accused who had died a month before his petition was filed. This instance took place in the case of Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court found itself embroiled in an unprecedented legal conundrum this week when confronted with a plea seeking anticipatory bail for an accused who had long departed from this world. In a bizarre turn of events, the deceased individual, Manjit Singh, managed to stir up quite a storm in the courtroom, leaving even the seasoned justices scratching their heads.
Conjuring Legal Chaos
In an order issued on Thursday, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul aptly described the situation as a “legal potpourri” concocted by the lawyer representing the late Manjit Singh. The audacity of filing a plea on behalf of a deceased client would have made even Houdini himself raise an eyebrow.
Unveiling the Mystery
The drama unfolded on Wednesday when the State produced Singh’s death certificate, revealing his demise on December 27, 2023. Despite this, his petition for anticipatory bail had been filed on January 24, leading to a perplexing scenario.
The Ghostly Petition
The Court expressed bewilderment at how a Power of Attorney from a deceased individual could have been procured and annexed to the petition. Adding to the intrigue, the petition even bore the signatures of the late petitioner, suggesting an eerie legal maneuver from beyond the grave.
Counsel’s Curious Explanation
When summoned before the Court, Singh’s counsel could not dispute his client’s demise but claimed to have been misled by an unknown individual. The counsel sought an unconditional apology, citing his unwitting involvement in the peculiar case.
Judicial Jest Amidst the Uncanny
While the courtroom found amusement in the surreal proceedings, Justice Kaul issued a stern warning to the counsel, urging caution in future legal endeavors to avoid summoning any more ghostly clients or entangling in supernatural legal quagmires.
A Grave Warning
The Court, while acknowledging the counsel’s relative inexperience, emphasized the importance of steering clear of such “otherworldly activities” to safeguard his promising career in the legal profession.
Conclusion
Ultimately, in light of the counsel’s apology and withdrawal of the plea, the Court allowed the request, bringing an end to this otherworldly legal escapade. However, the incident serves as a cautionary tale, reminding legal practitioners of the importance of diligence and discretion in navigating the complexities of the legal realm.
