Frame-up of chemist: HC seeks report from Chandigarh DGP
The court directed the DGP to examine the claims of the chemist and another accused arrested with him, along with the status reports filed earlier by police during hearings on their bail pleas
The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought a detailed affidavit from the Chandigarh director general of police (DGP) on a plea from a city chemist alleging frame-up by cops in a 2020 synthetic drugs case.
The court directed the DGP to examine the claims of the chemist and another accused arrested with him, along with the status reports filed earlier by police during hearings on their bail pleas.
“..(DGP) should file a comprehensive affidavit including the facts and circumstances of the case till date,” the bench of justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said while posting the matter for November 20.
The petitioner chemist, Karan Sharda, and one more person, Durgesh Mishra, were arrested in a synthetic drugs case following an FIR at the Industrial Area police station on March 20, 2020.
Police had claimed that on March 19, 2020, sub-inspector Ashok Kumar, along with assistant sub-inspector Satyawan, constable Anil Kumar, and head constables Kanwarpal and Balkar Singh, were present near Sai Baba Mandir, Sector 29, Chandigarh, when Sharda’s vehicle was stopped and synthetic drugs were recovered.
However, Sharda had claimed that he was abducted from the Zirakpur-Ambala highway by some people in civilian clothes. The petitioner claimed that he was then taken to Sector 29, Chandigarh, and asked to make a phone call to Durgesh Mishra, who was also arrested.
{{/usCountry}}However, Sharda had claimed that he was abducted from the Zirakpur-Ambala highway by some people in civilian clothes. The petitioner claimed that he was then taken to Sector 29, Chandigarh, and asked to make a phone call to Durgesh Mishra, who was also arrested.
{{/usCountry}}If an inquiry is conducted by a senior officer of Chandigarh Police, the documents and CCTV footage, etc., would bring out the “actual truth out of the whole incident”, the plea had said.
{{/usCountry}}If an inquiry is conducted by a senior officer of Chandigarh Police, the documents and CCTV footage, etc., would bring out the “actual truth out of the whole incident”, the plea had said.
{{/usCountry}}The proceedings since 2020
{{/usCountry}}The proceedings since 2020
{{/usCountry}}After coming across different versions, the high court in September 2020 had directed the DGP to get an inquiry done and sought his affidavit. Upon this, the DGP had constituted a special investigation team (SIT). Sharda had remained in custody for three months before being released on bail by the high court. In 2022, after the SIT probe, the police had filed a cancellation report in the March 2020 FIR.
{{/usCountry}}After coming across different versions, the high court in September 2020 had directed the DGP to get an inquiry done and sought his affidavit. Upon this, the DGP had constituted a special investigation team (SIT). Sharda had remained in custody for three months before being released on bail by the high court. In 2022, after the SIT probe, the police had filed a cancellation report in the March 2020 FIR.
{{/usCountry}}In December 2022, Sharda had approached the high court demanding action against the cops and seeking a CBI investigation against the cops, who he alleged were shielded by top officers.
He had presented call records between him and his brother to show that he was apprehended earlier than the claims made by police. He also claimed that tower locations of the police officials would show that he was illegally abducted.
The SIT report had also found contradictions in the recovery shown in case, the plea had claimed. It was further submitted that the forensic report of the drugs’ injections shown recovered by the police had different content than shown in the FIR.
When the case was taken up on September 19 this year, the petitioner submitted that the affidavit sought by the high court in September 2020 was never supplied by the DGP.
Countering the submissions, UT’s counsel told the court that departmental inquiries had been carried out against the erring officials. The order in question was passed during the Covid pandemic, and thereafter the case was investigated and the petitioner was discharged as well. Non-submission of affidavit by the DGP was totally unintentional, the counsel clarified.
Taking note of the submissions, the court once again directed the DGP to examine the petitioner’s claims vis-à-vis police investigation reports and file an affidavit by the adjourned date.