High Court raps cops for ‘sorry state of affairs’

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 2

Rapping the Punjab Police for “a very sorry state of affairs” in a case where two women aged around 87 were beaten up, but the accused were not arrested despite lapse of about 18 months since the dismissal of their anticipatory bail pleas, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the IG, Bureau of Investigation, to remain personally present before the Bench. He has been asked to explain the total mismanagement.

Directions have also been issued to the IG to elaborate upon the efforts made by the police to arrest the accused and why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for overreaching the HC order where the anticipatory bail plea of the accused stood dismissed, but the police officers were giving notices instead of arresting them. He was asked to explain why Rs 2 lakh costs be not given to the petitioner before the Bench for unnecessary harassment in the matter.

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan observed it was a clear case of causing injuries to two women, who were medico-legally examined “to support that they suffered three injuries”. The anticipatory bail of three accused was dismissed in the matter by the HC way back in 2019. But the police authorities were “protecting and not arresting them”.

Justice Sangwan took note of the state’s submission that departmental proceedings had been initiated against ASI Deepak Kumar and ASI Kulbir Singh. Besides, a third inquiry, marked by Bureau of Investigation Director to Patiala AIG was pending.

Justice Sangwan asserted the first inquiry was conducted by the Ropar SSP. The second by the Ropar IG and the version given by the accused was found to be false. “A third inquiry had been ordered in gross violation of the own instructions of the Director-General of Police that repeated inquiries should not be conducted”.

He ruled that final decision would not be taken by the AIG on the third inquiry. The directions came on a petition by Gurcharan Singh for action against the accused named in the FIR registered on July 5, 2019, for outraging religious feelings, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and other offences under various Sections of the IPC. The Bench was told that the accused were roaming freely and not being arrested. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that a respondent-accused got an FIR registered on July 7, 2020, against the petitioner. It showed that respondent-accused came to the police station for FIR’s registration. But he was not arrested in the FIR, despite dismissal of anticipatory bail application by the HC.