The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the execution of a non-bailable warrant issued against Congress National Spokesperson Randeep Surjewala for the next five weeks. 

The Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra granted liberty to Surjewala to move the trial court with an application to quash the warrant against him within four weeks. 

The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi before the Apex Court, which took it on board, though it was not listed today.

Appearing for Surjewala, Singhvi said the warrant was issued by a Varanasi Special Judge (MP-MLA) on November 7, 2023, directing the Congress National Spokesperson to appear before the court on November 21 in connection with a case of alleged political agitation dating back to 2000, when Surjewala served as a youth Congress leader.

Singhvi contended that the case stemmed from events of 2000, and the summons were issued against Surjewala 22 years later in August 2022. 

The Senior Counsel argued that the court had not provided him with the legible copies of essential documents, including medical records.

He said the petitioner had moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which reserved its judgement in the matter on October 30, 2023.

However, despite the order not being out yet, non-bailable warrants were issued against him, he noted. Singhvi submitted that the High Court had refused urgent mentioning and listing of the matter. 

Asserting that the warrants could not have been issued against him, Singhvi submitted that Surjewala may be right or wrong, but why the NBWs? 

Noting that Surjewala was a senior secretary and needed some ‘breathing space,’ the Senior Counsel said that once the judgement came, the Congress leader would take his recourse.

He further pointed out that warrants have been issued at a time when Surjewala was doing the campaign work for the Madhya Pradesh Assembly elections.

Noting that it was not necessary to issue notice to respondents at this stage, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move an application for cancellation of NBW before the trial court within four weeks. 

It further ruled that the warrant shall not be executed till the next five weeks.

A Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Randeep Singh Surjewala.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case (State Vs Vijay Shanker Pandey and Others), arising out of Case under Sections 147, 332, 353, 336, 333, 427 IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I/ Special Judge (MP/ MLA Court), Varanasi.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, entire proceedings be quashed.

Counsel for the applicant has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

Counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant has already been directed to be released on bail.

Per contra, AGA has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

The Court observed that,

From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Moreover, the applicant had already been directed to be released on bail and he has got right of discharge under Section 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C, as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and the accused has a right to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is therefore refused by the High Court.

However, it is directed by the High Court that in case the applicant files an application for discharge before the court below through counsel within a period of two weeks, the same be considered and decided expeditiously within six weeks.

For a period of two months or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the applicant, the Court ordered.

With the aforesaid directions, the Court disposed of the application under Section 482 CrPC.