In its order dated October 28, 2024, the
Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh
Grewal and Lapita Banerji observed: "The Advocate General, Punjab has filed the affidavit dated 27.10.2024 of Assistant Inspector General of Police wherein it is stated that Punjab police officers/officials have been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the 8 officers. Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge, CIA Kharar who had been given extension in services has been terminated by the order dated 25.10.2024. It appears that beside two gazetted officers who have been placed under suspension, the other officers include officers of the rank of HC, ASI, Sub Inspectors. This Court, by order dated 07.08.2024 had specifically directed that action should be taken against the senior officers who had facilitated the interview and the lower level officers should not be made scapegoats. No action appears to have been taken against the senior officers of the District. By order dated 24.09.2024, we had also directed the State to inform us by filing an affidavit of the competent authority as to why the interviewee had been kept in the premises of CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time, and whether the repeated remands to keep the interviewee there was a deliberate attempt to keep him at the same station for extraneous reasons or whether he was generally required for investigation. Explanation was also sought for as to why Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge CIA was given extension and posted there. The affidavit addressing the aforesaid concern of the Court has not been filed till date. We, therefore, direct the Director General of Police, Punjab to file an affidavit in this regard. Earlier it came to the notice of this Court that the Director General of Police had made a statement in a press conference that the interview had not taken place in any jail in the State of Punjab."
It also observed: "The fact that the interview had been conducted within the premises of CIA staff Kharar, District SAS Nagar makes it even worse as it appears to have been conducted in connivance with the police officers. Therefore, we direct the DGP, Punjab to disclose on affidavit the basis of such statement made during press conference. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that although this Court by the order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the interview to be taken off from all social media platforms by blocking/removing all URL links but it has again resurfaced on some websites/social media handles. This Court by order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the removal of the interview. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:-
“While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony." Advocate Tanu Bedi is the Amicus Curiae.
The relevant excerpts also reads" "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard."
The order noted: "We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain. The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed and connected cases under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest. We deem it appropriate to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, D.G., Human Rights Commission, the other members of the Team would be Dr. S. Rahul, IPS and Ms. Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime. It is true that freedom of speech and expression has been enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This freedom also includes a free and fair press which is an important pillar of a democracy governed by rule of law. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which include security of State, public order and would not permit incitement to an offence. We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals. The interviewee is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses. These interviews are stated to have garnered over 12 million views. It would have an adverse impact upon youngsters with impressionable minds. Punjab is a border State and any deterioration in law and order or increase in crime could affect the national security as at times, anti national elements take advantage of the situation and often use criminals for their nefarious designs. They often get help from across the border. There is a thin line between extortion, target killings and anti–national activities. The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. xxxxX”
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media
platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. xxxxxX”.
The order reads: "Learned Advocate General assures this Court that necessary steps shall be taken to remove the interview from all the social media platforms located globally and in compliance to the order and appropriate action shall be taken against those who have facilitated the uploading and forwarding of the banned content. Further, we direct that there should be periodic check and if interviews banned vide order dated 21.12.2023 are found to have resurfaced then they be removed immediately without any further orders of this Court. This Court had constituted the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission to conduct investigation in FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2024 registered under Sections 384, 201, 202, 506, 116, 120-B IPC and 52A of Prisons Act. The SIT had been able to pinpoint that the interview had taken place within the premises of CIA staff Kharar on the basis of assessment of electronic evidence and had also been able to pinpoint the misconduct & negligence of the officers. However, cancellation report had been filed before the JMIC wherein it was mentioned that besides offence under Section 506 IPC, the aforenoted offences under which the FIR had been registered were not made out. It is important to note that the SIT has been able to establish that the interview had taken place within the premises of the CIA staff Kharar in the presence of senior officers of the Punjab Police. The office of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station was used as a studio to conduct the interview. The official Wi-Fi at the premises of the CIA staff had been provided for conducting the interview which is a pointer towards the criminal conspiracy. The report indicates that roznamcha was also forged and fabricated. The matter calls for further investigation as to for what consideration this was done and the various aspects towards offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act besides other offences need to be examined. Therefore, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. raises a suspicion of nexus and conspiracy between the police officers and the criminal. The police officers allowed the criminal to use electronic device and provided a studio like facility to conduct the interview which tends to glorify crime with the potential to facilitate other crimes including extortion by the criminal and his associates. Involvement of the police officers may suggest receipt of illegal gratification from the criminal or his associates and constitute offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the case requires further investigation. Learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that it is indeed a serious matter and further investigation needs to be carried out towards unearthing the criminal conspiracy, abetment, corruption etc. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, who is virtually present in Court submits that the SIT earlier did not have the mandate to look into the other offences including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation was not carried out regarding those aspects as the SIT did not deem it appropriate to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry."
It further reads:"We direct that a new SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar and also comprising of Mr. Nageshwar Rao, ADGP, Provisioning and Mr.Nilabh Kishore, ADGP, STF to carry out further investigation towards criminal conspiracy, abetment, forgery, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, Information Technology Act and also under any other offence. The SIT shall file a status report within a period of 6 weeks. The learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that he shall be filing an affidavit with the Registry with regard to augmentation of jail security. At this juncture, learned Amicus Curiae has also informed the Court that an application has been received from the inmate of District Jail Nabha namely Ravinder Singh @ Lali Maur son of Baldev Singh that he is a law student and wants to apprise this Court of various issues concerning the jail. He may address this Court on the next date of hearing through video conferencing. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nabha shall provide video conferencing facilities to enable the applicant to address the Court. List on 19.11.2024. Photocopy of this order be placed in the connected file(s)."
In its order dated October 15, 2024, the
Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh
Grewal and Lapita Banerji had observed: Mr. Prabodh Kumar, the Special Director General of Police, Punjab Human Rights Commission cum-head of the SIT has filed an affidavit with regard to the completion to investigation in FIR No. 1 dated 05.01.2024 registered at Police Station State Crime, Punjab, SAS Nagar. It is state din the affidavit that the police. report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (now BNSS, 2023) has been filed on 09.10.2024 in the Court of JMIC, District SAS Nagar. In the affidavit, self-contained note has been annexed as Annexure R-1 indicating the misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty by the concerned officers. The note has also been sent to the Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs We appreciate the commendable efforts made by the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS in conducting the investigation as well as preparing the note pointing to the negligence and dereliction of duties of the officers. Learned Amicus Curiae prays for time to examine the affidavit and to apprise this Court as to whether the report of the High Powered Committed set up by the State Govt. suffered from lapses which were deliberate or intentional in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. Learned State counsel submits that they have received a self- contained note (Annexure R-1) and has assured the Court that appropriate action has been initiated against delinquent officials and prays for sometime to file an affidavit in that regard. Mr. Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submits that several steps have been taken towards installation of V-Kavach jammers and prays for time to file an affidavit in this regard. List on 28.10.2024. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case."
Notably, on July 30 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra
Sharma had passed an order
dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the first
information reports (FIRs)
lodged against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on the direction of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in connection with the interview given to a
private TV while being lodged in high-security prison. Lawrence Bishnoi's original name is Balkaran Brar. The SLP was filed
on June 11, 2024, verified on July 25, 2024 and registered on July 30,
2024. The respondents were: the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana
and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The
Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh
Grewal and Kirti Singh had passed a detailed order on December 21, 2023.
The High Court took note of the case of Lawrence Bishnoi's interview
while hearing a totally unrelated case.
The
High Court's order reads: "While hearing the matter, it had also come
to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is
also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh
Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the
interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated
to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the
State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was
in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time
the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered
Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been
constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been
viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had
been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was
also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae
submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into
by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or
re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the
interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be
pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these
aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated
that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on
youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the
young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal
life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his
own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so
many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and
then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire
of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million
viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the
telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing
threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of
Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental
right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject
to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality
and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely
affecting public order and harmony."
The
order reads: "We have also gone through the report which indicates that
the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable
that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the
police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee
has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not
being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab.
They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this
regard. We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding.
Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration
of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in
violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government
may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the
respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction
to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data
exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of
investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both
of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned
case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate
jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to
the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain."
The
order reads: "The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended
registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be
investigated with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for
summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State
counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government
and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence
Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been
convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself
appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a
High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the
gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large
number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in
police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months
to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration
of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special
Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be
brought to book at the earliest."
The
High Court observed: "We have gone through the contents of the
interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals....he
interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities.
He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large
number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt
to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the
witnesses....The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security
breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been
telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. The
Committee has recommended that the Government may ask the police to
ensure removal of videos pertaining to Interview-I and Interview-II from
YouTube/ internet, wherever possible. We would not like to wait for the
government to act at its leisure but would direct the removal of the
interviews. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others,
(CROCP No.2 of 2023) wherein while relying upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, it had directed the removal/blocking of the offensive content from social media platforms."
It
relied on Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ‘X’ vs. Union of
India and ors. (Decided on : 20.04.2021),while drawing upon Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India
wherein the Court had directed the offending contents to be removed. In
the event of intermediary not removing objectionable contents in
pursuance to the direction of this Court, it would loose its exemption
under Section 79 of the I.T. Act from its liability in cases illustrated
therein. Moreover, Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) of The Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
provides that, the intermediary shall make reasonable efforts to cause
the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify,
publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which
threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of
India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or
causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence, or
prevents investigation of any offence, or is insulting other nation;
(emphasis supplied). Furthermore, Rule 3(1)(d) provides that an
intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored,
hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an
order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the
Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3)
of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful
information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in
force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of
India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States;
public order; decency or morality; defamation; incitement to an offence
relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force.
The High Court had issued the following directions:
i)
The DGP, Punjab, is directed to immediately register two FIRs with
regard to the conduct of two interviews as recommended by the Special
Investigation Team in the police station having State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of the FIRs shall be carried out by the
Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS, DG, Human
Rights Commission. The other members of the SIT would include Dr.
S.Rahul, IPS and Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.
iii)
The Head of the SIT would be at liberty to seek assistance of any other
officer or of any other kind, on his making a request, the DGP, Punjab
shall provide all necessary help and assistance to him. A copy of the
report dated 11.12.2023 and the relevant record shall be handed over to
the Head of the SIT. The SIT shall conclude the investigation
expeditiously and file a status report before this Court within a period
of two months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is further directed:
(a) to
get the URLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to both the said interviews
removed/blocked/disable/restrict from all social media platforms like
Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure that the Press channel, where
the said interview is hosted, removes the URLs/weblinks/videos from all
its news /social media platforms with immediate effect;
(c) In case
the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing
on any social media platform in future, the same be get removed with
immediate effect;
(d) to direct the intermediary to preserve all the
information associated relating to the offending content for use in
investigation, in line with Rule 3(1) (g) of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To
direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to
globally de-index and de-reference from their search results the
afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its
web URL and image URL.
(f) All the
concerned intermediaries be informed that non- compliance with the
foregoing directions would make the non-complaint party liable to
forfeit the exemption, if any, available to it generally under Section
79 (1) of the I.T.Act and as specified by Rule 7 of 2021 Rules: and
shall make such entity and its officers liable for action as mandated by
section 85 of the I.T.Act.
(g) The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab shall file a
status report with regard to the timelines for installation of jammers,
CCTV cameras, nylon mesh, X-ray body scanners etc. for augmentation of
jail security.
A subsequent order of the High Court dated September 24, 2024 records that Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae
submitted that "the interviewee had been kept at the premises of the
CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time and repeated remands had been
taken to keep him there which needs to be examined as to whether there
was a deliberate attempt to keep him there for extraneous reasons or he
was genuinely required for investigation. It has also been brought to
our notice by the counsel for State of Punjab that Inspector Shiv Kumar,
the then Incharge of the CIA Staff, Kharar had retired in the year
2023. However, the affidavit filed by the ADGP (Prisons) indicates that
Inspector Shiv Kumar was Incharge of the CIA Staff Kharar till January,
2024. It is disconcerting to believe that an officer, who had
superannuated, had been given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar.
Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions in this regard
and file an affidavit of the competent authority as to why he was given
extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. The State shall also file an
affidavit in response to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae
with regard to stay of interviewee at CIA Staff Kharar and as to whether
the officers who have been issued show cause notices are currently at
posts having public dealing."
The
order of September 24, 2024 notes that the State counsel filed an
affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Litigation,
Bureau of Investigation, Punjab in Court to submit that "show cause
notices have been issued to four officers including the then SSP of the
District SAS Nagar as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated
against them. He has also filed an affidavit of the Additional Director
General of Police, Prisons, Punjab indicating the progress made in
installation of jammers, AI based CCTV cameras, body worn cameras, X-Ray
baggage scanners and prison inmate calling system." The order states
that the counsel for Union of India, one of the respondents "furnished a
copy of the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Additional
Solicitor General of India dated 18.09.2024 indicating that ‘no
objection certificate’ to the State Government has been accorded vide
letter of even number dated 23.08.2024 to the proposal of the Department
of Jails, Govt. of Punjab for deployment of jammers in its jails. The
said communication is taken on record." But the order records that Arun
Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video
conferencing, submitted that "no objection
certificate for installation of jammers in the Central Jail, Sri
Goindwal Sahib is still pending consideration before the Govt. of
India."
Notably,
ABP Network news channel has filed a case in the Supreme Court through
Advocate Prasanna S. on August 13, 2024 which was verified On September
13, 2024 and registered on September 12, 2024 in the aftermath of High
Court's order wherein it took note of the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi
in jail by Jagvinder Patial, a ABP News journalist. In December 2023,
the High Court had ordered the registration of FIR and probe by an SIT
headed by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar into the interview of Bishnoi. The
High Court had acted suo motu in the matter concerning the use of mobile
phones by inmates within jail premises. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme
Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B.
Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed an
order
saying, "While the second petitioner shall cooperate in the
investigation by the Special Investigation Team which has been
constituted by the High Court, we direct that pending further orders of
this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners."
The second petitioner is Patial, the journalist. The case is pending
before the Supreme Court.
It
is apparent that subsequently, Lawrence Bishnoi was put in Delhi's
Tihar Jail. He was lodged there before being handed over to
the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad in April 2023 even as the case being
heard in Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. Gujarat
Police had
found the role of one Bharat Bhushan alias Bhola Shooter - a member of
the Lawrence Bishnoi gang - in the 2021 Morbi drug seizure. Bhushan died
while being in jail. Later, National Investigation Agency (NIA) had
filled a chargesheet against gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar
for having links with the banned pro-Khalistan outfit Babbar Khalsa
International (BKI) and other similar terrorist groups in one of three
terror-criminal nexus cases. The chargesheet named 12 other individuals.
NIA had alleged that Bishnoi, along with Canada-based gangster Goldy
Brar and has been operating his terror-crime syndicate from
jails. Bishnoi
is in jail from 2015. Goldy
Brar is reported to be hiding in Canada.
