After claiming that the judge had issued a bailable warrant against Jasleen Kaur for failing to appear before the court, Saravjeet Singh, accused of molesting Kaur, said that court documents pertaining to the order do not include any warrant against her.
Saravjeet still maintains that at the last hearing on 29 August 2018, the judge had asked the stenographer to issue a bailable warrant against Jasleen Kaur, and even mentioned that a non-bailable warrant will be issued, if she fails to show up at the next hearing on 1 December 2018.
However, he has now admitted that the court documents do not reflect this assertion, and issued an apology.
“It’s my fault that I had not checked the order documents carefully and I apologise for it. A sorry doesn’t make the person small in stature. When I checked the court documents, I couldn’t find any mention of a bailable warrant against Jasleen Kaur.”Saravjeet Singh
Saravjeet insisted the mistake was a genuine one, and should not be construed as an attempt to gain sympathy or turn the case in his favour.
The Print, in one of its reports on the matter, had claimed that the Delhi court, where the molestation case is being heard, had issued a bailable warrant against Jasleen Kaur on 28 August 2018.
Following up on the matter, The Quint, in its earlier report, had clarified that it was not able to independently verify Sarabjeet Singh’s claim (that a bailable warrant had been issued against Kaur). We also found that the last hearing was on 29 August and not on 28 August.
When it was pointed out to him that court documents for the case available online didn’t include any such warrant, Singh had said that he would get the court documents to prove his assertion, which however, now stands disproved.
When approached by The Quint, Jasleen Kaur had at the outset refuted Saravjeet’s statement, saying: “No bailable warrants have been issued against me at all. This can be verified from the court by anyone who is interested.”
Jasleen Didn't Appear Before Court, Reiterates Saravjeet
Although he admits that he was wrong about the the bailable warrant, Saravjeet says the fact that Jasleen did not appear before the court, despite repeated summons, still holds. Jasleen had countered this allegation, stating that she was merely a witness to the case and was not summoned for all 13 hearings, as claimed by Saravjeet.
The Quint had earlier reported that records from the Tis Hazari court (where the proceedings have been taking place) available online show that so far, 12 hearings have taken place, as opposed to the 13 claimed by Saravjeet.
The same report also pointed out that Jasleen had failed to appear and make her statement from the seventh hearing on 28 June 2017 till the twelfth (and most recent) hearing on 29 August 2018. The court’s website does not include any documents regarding the last hearing, though it is noted to have taken place, with the next hearing scheduled for 1 December 2018.
When asked about her prolonged absence from the court, sources close to Jasleen claimed that after the first summon was issued, her father had asked the court to allow her to join the proceedings via video conference as she had exams four times a year.
The sources also claimed that Jasleen’s counsel had requested the court to bear the cost of her travel to and from Canada. Both requests, the sources asserted, were disallowed by the judge. From the date the first summons was issued to her till now, Jasleen has not made a trip back home as she was busy with coursework, the sources added.
This is despite a statement by Jasleen’s lawyer at the hearing on 23 September 2017, when he claimed that she would be back in the country in December 2017.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)