The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over remarks made by a Senior Advocate during the hearing of anticipatory bail pleas, observing that such conduct was “never expected” from senior members or designated Senior Advocates of the Bar.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth made the observation while hearing two connected petitions filed seeking anticipatory bail in separate cases registered under provisions of the IPC/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The allegations included that the petitioner and complainant were closely connected and that, allegedly at the petitioner's instance, the complainant used to submit complaints against different persons which were subsequently marked to the petitioner for inquiry.

However, during the hearing, the Court also turned its attention to the role of the complainant.

The Court recorded that the State had earlier assured that the complainant's role would also be examined to determine whether the alleged offences were made out against the petitioner alone or against the complainant or any other person as well.

The Court observed that despite this assurance, the State had not undertaken the exercise so far.

“Respondent State was expected to look into the said aspect on its own. However, till date no such consideration or exercise seem to have been undertaken by the respondent-State, thus, the delay on such aspect is attributable to the State itself,” the Court recorded.

At this stage, Senior Advocate G.K. Mann, appearing for the complainant, questioned why such a direction had been issued to the State at the preliminary stage when the complainant had not been heard.

The Senior Counsel further submitted that the observation made by the Court reflected “complete bias” on its part.

The Court, however, chose not to comment further on the remarks.

Justice Vashisth observed:

“This Court would refrain from commenting upon the remarks made by Ms. G.K. Mann, learned Senior Advocate, and would rather leave it to Ms. G.K. Mann, learned Senior Advocate, to examine the remarks, which were not conducive to the proceedings, after leaving the Court and upon considering the matter in its entirety.”

The Court then expressed its concern over the conduct, observing:

“However, this Court would express its concern that such conduct or such remarks are never expected from worthy senior members/designated Senior Advocates of the Bar.”

The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the factual and legal issues involved at this stage.

It accordingly deferred detailed consideration of the anticipatory bail pleas and directed the State to place before it the complete factual and legal position, including the role of the complainant and any other person, if warranted.

The Court directed that the matter be listed on September 7, 2026.

Till the next date of hearing, the arrest of Sandhu was stayed.

Title: GURSHER SINGH SANDHU V/S STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to read order