The Supreme Court on November 14 sought an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial) how a party (complainant in this case) was able to file a counter-affidavit when its application seeking impleadment was not allowed by the Court. 

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against the May 17 order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejection of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 and Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

A vacation bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta on June 7 had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No.07/2024 dated February 17. 

When the matter was heard on November 14, the Court was informed that a counter affidavit was filed by the Complainant.  The Court was apprised that the application seeking impleadment of the Complainant was not allowed by the Court. 

On this, the Court observed: "Registry is directed to explain as to how, such counter affidavit from the proposed respondent complainant, who is not a party, could be accepted."

While listing the matter after 2 weeks, the Court extended its interim order till further hearing.

Case Details: Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024

Appearances: Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR; Saransh Bhardwaj, Advocate (for Petitioners) and AOR Karan Sharma and Mohit Siwach, Advocate (for Respondents), Ishma Radhawa, Advocate and Ayush Anand, AOR (Complainant/Respondent 2)

Click Here To Read Order