A court in Amritsar on Thursday sought CCTV footage from the police in connection with an FIR registered against senior Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia and more than 50 party supporters, while scheduling the next hearing in the matter for June 15.
The case pertains to allegations that Majithia and several Akali workers entered the Majitha police station, tore official documents and obstructed government functioning. During the hearing, both the prosecution and defence presented detailed arguments before the court.
Counsel for the defence, Advocate Ajay Kumar Varmani, told reporters that the accused had been falsely implicated in a politically motivated case. He argued that the FIR stemmed from developments following local panchayat elections and maintained that Majithia and other Akali leaders had only visited the police station to seek information regarding the detention of an individual.
According to the defence, the leaders had merely asked police officials to provide details and documents related to the arrest. Varmani said the court questioned the police over the absence of CCTV footage that could substantiate allegations that documents were torn or other unlawful acts had taken place inside the police station.
He further stated that the police informed the court that the footage was not presently available with them and that control of the recording system rested at a higher level in Chandigarh. The defence urged that any available footage be produced before the court to establish the facts of the case.
Another defence counsel, Advocate Amanveer Singh Siyali, said several prosecution claims came under scrutiny during the proceedings. He noted that while the police referred to social media videos and other materials as evidence, they were unable to provide a clear response when asked about CCTV recordings and certain technical evidence.
Siyali alleged that the case was being pursued despite the absence of adequate supporting evidence and described it as politically motivated. He maintained that citizens have the right to seek information about the grounds of an arrest and that merely asking questions should not be treated as a criminal act.
Senior police officials, members of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and several defence lawyers were present during the hearing. The court is expected to take up issues related to CCTV footage and other evidence when the matter comes up again on June 15.
The case continues to draw attention due to its legal and political implications, with further developments likely during the next round of proceedings.