Panchkula police in dock over ‘illegal’ arrest of Pinjore youth

The Haryana Human Rights Commission has directed Panchkula Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Srishty Gupta to appear before the commission in person over the “illegal” arrest and “physical torture” of a Pinjore-based youngster, Parvesh Sharma, in an Arms Act case.

The Panchkula police have denied the claims of illegal arrest and physical violence in its report before the commission.

However, the court of a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had declared the arrest illegal, and ordered a medical examination — which confirmed that Sharma had incurred injuries.

Now, it remains to be seen how much the police claim holds water as the next date of hearing before the commission, August 20, approaches.

What is the case?

Parvesh Sharma, an 18-year-old from Pinjore, was booked on June 17 over celebratory firing. Visuals of the incident had made rounds across social media, leading to him being booked under the Arms Act, and being arrested on June 26. He got bail the next day.

On July 15, he visited the Pinjore police station at 2.30 pm in pursuance of a notice issued by the police. The next day (July 16), he was produced before the court of Kalka Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) Abhimanyu Rajput at 5.20 pm. The Investigating Officer (IO), Sub-Inspector Yadwinder Singh, was also present during the proceedings.

The court declared his arrest illegal.

Why did the Kalka court declare his arrest illegal?

When Sharma was produced before the court, the Sub-Inspector submitted an application for his re-arrest, claiming that more sections of the Arms Act had been added to the case.

However, Public Prosecutor Ranvijay Rana refused to forward the police’s application as he was not convinced by it. Also, the Judge had asked the IO about the timeline and reason for the accused’s arrest, even before the application for re-arrest was presented.

The IO submitted that Sharma was re-arrested on July 15 when he came to join the investigation in pursuance of a notice.

When the Judge asked the IO whether the order dated June 27 — vide which the bail of Sharma was allowed — had been challenged and set aside by any superior court, he replied in the negative.

The IO’s statement was recorded in court. The Public Prosecutor submitted that he couldn’t defend the act and conduct of the IO.

The judge declared the arrest illegal, and set Sharma free.

Why was the accused’s medical examination conducted?

Sharma’s counsel told the court on July 16 that, during the “illegal” custody, he was physically tortured at the Panchkula CIA building. Sharma showed the soles of his feet, which were dark and appeared slightly swollen, observed the Judge.

The court directed the Chief Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, to constitute a medical board and conduct a medico-legal examination of the accused.

The medical board was directed to give its opinion pertaining the duration and nature of injury, if any.

The medical board — comprising four doctors of the Panchkula Civil Hospital — confirmed that Sharma incurred four injuries.

Meanwhile, Sharma approached Haryana Human Rights Commission over his arrest.

Why has the rights panel directed the Panchkula DCP to appear before it in person?

During proceedings before the commission, DCP (Crime and Traffic) Manpreet Singh Sudan had appeared on July 30 and submitted a report where allegations of illegal custody and physical torture were denied.

In his objections to the report, Sharma’s counsel Deepanshu Bansal submitted an audio conversation between him and Panchkula DCP Srishty Gupta. Bansal levelled allegations against Gupta pertaining to wrong information being given about the revocation of bail orders by the Sessions Judge.

He further alleged in his objections that the DCP (Crime and Traffic), who was appointed as an inquiry officer, did not inquire into the matter impartially, and partial findings were given in favour of the Panchkula DCP.

The commission also observed that there was no Daily Diary Report of July 15 (the day of Sharma’s re-arrest) in the record produced by the IO.

It was also observed that, without the recovery of the weapon or the physical presence of the alleged gun, the Armourer’s opinion was taken on July 2, whereas, according to the police’s version, the weapon had been recovered on July 17.

Meanwhile, no report of any such Armourer dated July 2 was produced before the commission.

The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was not received so far in the case, the commission had said.