A day after the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognisance of the shooting at High Court Bar Association’s former secretary Gagandeep Jammu and the larger issue of court security, a Division Bench on Thursday kept open the possibility of a CBI probe into the attack, but made it clear that such a course was not warranted at this stage.
“We can think about that only when they don’t take any effective steps,” the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry observed, while directing Punjab to submit a fresh status report by May 25, when the court would review the progress of the investigation.
At the onset, senior advocate and UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji submitted what mattered the most at the current stage was not merely enhancing protection, but ensuring that culprits are apprehended.
“What is more necessary today is that those culprits are caught. Yes, security, of course, we can keep on enhancing it”
Representing the Bar, president Rohit Sud flagged gangster culture. He told the Bench that the attack reflected a disturbing pattern of gangster-linked crime in Punjab.
“These people are committing crimes and flashing on Facebook and other social media we’ve done this today we have done that today. As far as this incident is concerned, it is very common in Punjab these days. Transferring the investigation to CBI in such a case also would be also appropriate”.
The Bench, however, stopped short of ordering a CBI probe immediately, indicating that it would “take a fresh look” and pass “suitable orders” after hearing the matter again on May 25.
The court’s scrutiny, during the course of hearing, extended beyond the attack itself to the progress of the investigation, alleged media leaks of CCTV footage, and glaring vulnerabilities in High Court security.
The Bench on Wednesday was told that unidentified assailants had opened fire at Jammu while he was travelling in Punjab; bullets struck his vehicle but he escaped unhurt.
Mohali police registered an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act on his complaint alleging that the attackers were on a motorcycle.
The Bench noted that the incident had occurred on May 18 around 8.15 pm and statements indicated that “two persons… on the motorcycle coming from behind” had fired at the vehicle, but the investigators had yet to trace even the motorcycle allegedly used.
“Even the motorcycles have not been found?” the court asked. On being told no breakthrough had occurred, the Bench responded: “So that’s also a very serious one.”
The court also questioned how media outlets obtained CCTV clips during ongoing probes. “I also sometimes feel that these media persons, how do they get those CCTV footages when the investigation is ongoing? They should never be shared. The police should never share these things with the media.”
Alongside the shooting probe, the hearing turned into a wider examination of security arrangements inside the High Court complex. The Bench discussed how outsiders in civil clothes could access parts of the premises and noted police hesitation in physically intervening in altercations involving lawyers.
The Bench also made an appeal to lawyers over security checks, saying resistance to frisking complicated safety measures. “Whenever frisking takes place of a lawyer, you should not resist. This is my request to you, all of you….”
Jhanji advocated technological upgrades — including proximity cards, digital passes, metal detector integration and even facial-recognition-based access — pointing out that even the Supreme Court had moved beyond manual systems.
Explaining the Supreme Court model, Jhanji submitted that lawyers use proximity cards or computer-generated entry passes linked to digital verification screens. Addressing the Bar directly, the court said: “Please consider in your general body and send it to us. We can immediately implement it.”
The Bench also stressed that people entering the complex must be willing to undergo checks. “You should be ready to expose yourself, to be checked. Personally, I don’t think anybody should have a problem.”
