Threat calls made from SIM issued on phoney details

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, February 14

An application moved by an advocate in the HUDA multiple plots allotment case alleging issuance of threats to him has apparently unearthed a racket involving use of SIM card, issued on phony details.

The advocate, Harmanjit Singh Sethi, had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging that threatening calls were received twice on his mobile number.

Sethi had further alleged that he received first call on the afternoon of January 19. The person making the call threatened Sethi to drag him to Bandra (Mumbai) court before ensuring his arrest. Sethi added that the person threatening him introduced himself as Rahul from Information and Technology Department.

Describing the manner as rude, Sethi had earlier stated that he was receiving blanks calls and threats ever since he started appearing in the multiple plot allotment case. He said efforts were being made to somehow pressurise him to withdraw from the present case.

In a status report placed before the Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary, the Haryana Police confirmed that two calls were indeed received on his mobile phone. But the SIM card from which calls were made, was obtained by an unknown person in the name of a Faridabad resident.

Panchkula Assistant Commissioner of Police stated that two outgoing calls were made to advocate Harmanjit Singh Sethi from the number mentioned by him in his plea on the previous date of hearing.

The Bench was also told that consumer application form of the particular number revealed that it was issued to one Udayveer Singh of Faridabad. The affidavit added that the SIM card was purchased from Badarpur in New Delhi. The name and address were found to be correct during the verification process. But Udayveer, in his statement informed the police that the SIM was neither purchased, nor used, by him. His version was found to be correct.

The report added the particular number was obtained by an unknown person in the name of Udayveer Singh and was being used by him. Thorough investigation was required in this regard.

Sethi, during the proceedings, contended that he had forwarded a representation to the UT on security issues on February 6. Responding to the submission, UT counsel averred that the representation would take time to reach the quarter concerned through proper channel. As such, additional time was required. Virtually rapping the UT, Justice Chaudhary asserted that a month could not be given for the purpose. Adjourning the matter for February 15, Justice Chaudhary asked the UT to inform the Bench on action taken.