Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed an FIR against senior Congress functionary and former Haryana Vyapar Mandal chairman Bajrang Dass Garg and his son, Akhil Garg, ruling that a person cannot be held criminally liable merely because a third party posed with their licensed weapons for photographs posted on social media.Hinting towards the possibility of political vendetta in the registration of the case, the HC observed, “The petitioner no. 1 (Bajrang Dass Garg), who is a political figure and a member of a political party in opposition, was involved in the present prosecution only a few months prior to the general election. The abovementioned fact-situation supports the claim of the petitioners that the present FIR has been slapped against them on account of political vendetta.” In its detailed orders passed recently, Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the prosecution’s own evidence suggested the photographs were taken by a driver who found the firearms lying in the house and subsequently posted the images to Facebook. The court held that the mere display of weapons by another person does not establish that the licensed owners unlawfully transferred possession or committed any offence under the Arms Act. The FIR was registered on April 20, 2019, at the Sector 5 police station in Panchkula under sections 25 (1-B) (a) and 29(B) of the Arms Act after the photographs surfaced online. According to the prosecution, the images were uploaded by Vikas Vaid, who worked as a driver for the Garg family. During an inquiry, Vaid reportedly admitted to police that he had taken selfies with the revolvers while they were left unattended in the house and uploaded them without the owners’ knowledge. Aggrieved by being implicated, Garg approached the HC, contending that the case was an outcome of political vendetta. In allowing the petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the HC observed the petitioners were valid licence holders of the weapons and there was no evidence that they had carried or used the firearms in violation of the Arms Act. “The essential ingredients for offences under sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act were not met. There was no evidence of mens rea (criminal intent) on the part of the petitioners,” the court held, ruling that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law and ordered the FIR to be quashed. MSID:: 129392655 413 |
