Specify disciplinary authorities, Punjab and Haryana High Court asks Chandigarh

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 3

Less than a month after a fact-finding inquiry was ordered into a case where a Superintendent of Police virtually granted anticipatory bail to an accused after it was denied up to the Supreme Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for details of disciplinary authorities in the case of then SP (EOW) Neha Yadav. Justice Deepak Sibal also called for the details in the case of then DSP (EOW) Sukhraj Katewa and investigating officer Harbans Singh.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, Justice Sibal took on record a preliminary fact-finding inquiry report filed by the UT DGP in a sealed cover. “Before any further orders can be passed in the issue, the counsel appearing for the UT is directed to produce the relevant procedure/rules as to who are the disciplinary authorities in the case of the then SP (EOW) Neha Yadav, the then DSP (EOW) Sukhraj Katewa and the investigating officer of the case SI Harbans Singh,” Justice Sibal ordered.

The case will now come up for further hearing in the last week of this month.

In the status report filed by the UT before Justice Sibal on a previous date of hearing, it was stated that Anup Nargas and Sanjeev Bhatia had lured the complainant in the case to invest Rs50 lakh in a company floated by them. Such allurement was made by showing the company’s forged share valuation certificate. The report added both Nargas and Bhatia embezzled the amount after the complainant invested Rs50 lakh.

Justice Sibal observed Nargas’ anticipatory bail before UT Sessions Court was opposed by the prosecution, saying that he had played a vital role in the forging the company’s share valuation certificate. It was added that he, along with Bhatia, defrauded several persons, including the complainant. As on date they had embezzled over Rs344 lakh.

Dismissing the plea vide order dated November 13, 2020, the Sessions Court expressed opinion that Nargas’ custodial interrogation was necessary. The High Court too was of the opinion that Nargas’ custodial interrogation was required and rejected his plea through order dated December 22, 2020. The Supreme Court, too, on December 30, 2020, dismissed his special leave petition with a further direction to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail.

Justice Sibal added that the Sessions Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court were concurrently of the view that Nargas’ custodial interrogation was necessary. Instead of surrendering after the dismissal of his SLP, Nargas made a representation to the then SP, Economic Offences Wing, reiterating the stand he had taken before the three courts.

The SP made a noting on the representation directing a DSP to look into the matter with a further direction to the investigating officer to join Nargas in investigation. As a result of such noting in a non-bailable offence, the SP virtually granted anticipatory bail to Nargas concurrently denied to him by the three courts.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.