Punjab Police-drug mafia nexus: No cop indicted in 3 SIT reports
Give a virtual clean chit to ex-Moga SSP Raj Jit Singh over links with drug tainted dismissed inspector Inderjit Singh, but suggest a further probe into Raj Jit’s assets
The much-hyped three reports of the special investigation team (SIT), constituted on the directions of the Punjab and Haryana high court to look into the alleged links of Punjab police officials with the drug mafia, have not indicted any cop.
Hindustan Times has accessed the final findings of these reports which were sent by Punjab and Haryana high court to the state government for action on March 28.
On Tuesday, chief minister Bhagwant Mann announced that he had received the three SIT reports and action will be initiated against the culprits according to the law.
The reports virtually give a clean chit to former Moga SSP Raj Jit Singh finding no link between him and the dismissed Punjab Police Inspector Inderjit Singh. The SIT reports, however, have suggested further inquiry into Raj Jit’s properties/assets.
On December 15, 2017, the SIT took over the case with then special DGP (human rights) S Chattopadhya and director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, and then IG ATS (Intelligence) Kunwar Vijay Partap as its members. Initially, then STF chief Harpreet Sidhu was conducting the probe. The SIT was formed when Raj Jit moved HC, alleging Sidhu’s bias against him.
The mandate of the probe (given to the SIT) was: “To investigate the allegations of complicity of SSP Raj Jit Singh Hundal in respect of his alleged association with dismissed Inspector Inderjit Singh emanating out of FIR No. 1, dated June 12, 2017, registered at special task force police station, Mohali”. FIR No. 1 pertains to recovery of 6 kg heroin from Inderjit by the STF.
The SIT report doesn’t mention any direct link between Raj Jit and Inderjit. It, however, said some points have emerged during the investigation and are worth noting.
‘Inderjit was a blue-eyed boy’
“When Raj Jit was posted as Tarn Taran SSP in 2013, on his special request, Inderjit was posted as an inspector in the district. Raj Jit had said his (Inderjit’s) services were immediately required in Tarn Taran. There were more than 40 senior officials senior to Inderjit in the district at that time,” the report states.
Also, Raj jit recommended a double promotion (from head constable to ASI) for Inderjit, it adds. “For these promotions Raj Jit certified that no criminal case or departmental probe was pending against Inderjit despite the fact that cases were pending against him,” further said the report.
After SSP Raj Jit was transferred to Hoshiarpur, he wrote a recommendation letter to the IGP stating that Inderjit was a very hard working officer.”
The final SIT report, however, concludes that there are many officers who have got Inderjit posted under them from time to time and the complicity of Inderjit with these officers can be a subject matter of a separate inquiry or investigation. “Even Raj Jit has said that Inderjit worked with him only for 14 months and there were many officers before and after who got him posted with them,” the report adds.
The SIT has also obtained Inderjit’s service record and found that 14 departmental inquiries were ordered against him since 1993.
“He had been censured five times and one year of approved service had also been forfeited. It is worth mentioning here that Inderjit had been let off in most of the departmental inquiries barring one in which his one year service was forfeited. The fact that Inderjit had been able to get himself out of the trouble in all of these inquiries, despite charges of serious nature, suggests that he wields a huge influence in the state police,” the SIT said.
Multiple promotions, plum postings
The SIT found that Inderjit had got multiple promotions and plum postings as SHO/CIA in-charge in various districts since 1993 which suggests that he was enjoying patronage of some senior officers.
The SIT also found that Raj Jit’s assets have grown ever since 2013 when he was posted as Tarn Taran SSP. It is required to analyse the assets acquired by Raj Jit with a particular emphasis on mobilisation of funds by him for these, says the report.
“There is also a need to look into the possible link of any such funds with the ill-gotten money Inderjit extorted from various drug accused,” said the SIT.
Raj jit’s assets under scanner
The SIT said it has taken details of Raj Jit’s assets from the annual property returns filed by the police officer. “An analysis of these property returns revealed that there has been an upswing in immovable assets owned by Raj Jit from 2013 and his family members which definitely provide scope for a further inquiry,” the SIT added.
The probe found that Raj Jit showed under-valued properties as his assets and used cash “gifted” to him by his close relatives to purchase them..
The SIT has also sought a probe into the financial capacity of the relatives who “gifted” money to Inderjit.
On allegations of Raj Jit’s association with Jalandhar-based Bath Castle owner Pavittar Singh Uppal, an income tax probe has been suggested by the SIT.
High profile case
*Three sealed cover reports were submitted in the high court by the SIT. The first report was submitted on January 30, 2018, and the second on March 14, 2018.
*However, on April 6, 2018, Chattopadhyaya told the court that the “role” of then police chief Suresh Arora and then DGP (intelligence) Dinkar Gupta had come to light during the investigation. He suggested that he was being ‘implicated’ in the suicide case of Inderpreet Chadha, son of former Chief Khalsa Diwan president Charanjit Singh Chadha, due to his investigation into the drug case. This suicide case FIR was registered in Amritsar in January 2018
*On May 8, 2018, third SIT report was filed in high court. On the same day, Chattopadhyaya also filed a separate report that was not signed by other SIT members who disassociated themselves from its contents.. This report was not opened by the high court.
*The three reports were opened on March 28 when the court took up intervention application by former DGP Suresh Arora who had argued that he be allowed to intervene to bring ‘right perspective” before the court’ about the private report’ submitted by Chattopadhya.
*The application stated that Chattopadhyaya had acted beyond the scope of the mandate of the SIT as specified by the court at the time of its constitution.
