F Bar firing case: Chandigarh court dismisses plea of witness for re-examination

A local court has dismissed an application by Pankaj Jakhar, one of the prosecution witnesses in the F Bar and Restaurant firing case, requesting to be re-examined and have his statement recorded afresh. The firing incident occurred six years ago during the birthday celebrations of Sehdev Salaria at F Bar, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

Advertisement

The police had registered an FIR against the accused on November 20, 2018, based on the complaint of Deepak Kundu.

Kundu reported that he and his friends had attended Salaria’s birthday party at the bar when the accused attacked them. Two of the accused pulled out pistols and fired at them, intending to kill.

In his application, Pankaj Jakhar claimed that he had identified the accused persons under pressure and coercion from the Chandigarh Police. He alleged that police officials forced him to identify Rinku, Rohit Bhardwaj, Chetan Munjal, Arjun Thakur, and Rajesh Kumar as the assailants.

Jakhar claimed he was threatened with consequences if he did not identify them, stating that these individuals were not involved in the incident and had not attacked him.

Jakhar further stated that his statement given on February 21, 2024, before the court was made under police influence, and he wished to bring the true facts to light. He requested the court to allow him to re-examine himself to clarify the situation.

However, Public Prosecutor Hukam Singh opposed the application. He argued that Jakhar had been examined as a witness following the Investigating Officer's direction, and at that time, the witness did not mention any pressure.

The prosecution maintained that Jakhar had voluntarily testified in court.

After hearing the arguments, the court rejected Jakhar's plea. The court noted that during the recording of Jakhar's statement on February 21, 2024, before the Additional Sessions Judge, he was cross-examined by the defence counsel, but did not raise any concerns about threats or coercion. The court observed that Jakhar had not indicated any duress or undue pressure when he testified, nor had he made any such claim at the time. Furthermore, there had been no reports of threats or coercion over the past year.

The court ruled that the fact Jakhar was accompanied by a police official on the day of his examination did not imply that his testimony had been given under duress.

The court found that there was no sufficient reason to allow the re-examination of Jakhar, stating that no cogent evidence had been presented to support his claim.

As a result, the application was dismissed. The court also adjourned the hearing of the case to March 26 after the defence counsel presented an order from the High Court, which had stayed the final judgment in the case.