Himachal DGP Sanjay Kundu moves Supreme Court against High Court order to shift him

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, December 31

Himachal Pradesh DGP Sanjay Kundu has reportedly moved the Supreme Court against the state high court’s order to shift him to ensure that he doesn’t influence the probe into the alleged harassment of Palampur businessman Nishant Sharma.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court had on December 26 ordered the state government to shift the DGP and Kangra Superintendent of Police Shalini Agnihotri to other posts before January 4, 2024 to ensure that “they didn’t have an opportunity to influence the investigation”.

The matter was likely to come up for hearing after the Supreme Court reopens on January 2, 2024.

Nishant had, in an email complaint to the high court, alleged that he and his family feared for their lives as he was “attacked in Gurugram and in McLeodganj”. He had sought the high court’s intervention on the grounds that he “needed protection from powerful people as he was living in constant fear of being killed”.

The high court had said it was “constrained to take the matter into its hands to ensure fair investigation in the FIR (lodged by Nishant) after the authorities concerned failed to act”.

A Bench Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua had said the Secretary (Home) had “ample opportunity to study the status reports filed by Kangra and Shimla SPs and take a call on the DGP’s continuance in the post”.

The Bench noted that “in the light of material available to it in the case to date, itwas satisfied that exceptional circumstances did exist for its intervention, more particularly when the Secretary (Home) chose to turn a blind eye for reasons best known to him”.

“In the interest of justice and also keeping in mind the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, it is desirable that the Himachal DGP and Kangra SP must be shifted out to ensure fair investigation in the FIRs lodged in the case,” read the order.

While passing the order, the high court, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims of the parties as the investigation was still incomplete.

Nishant had alleged threat to his life from “two extremely rich and well-connected persons, a former IPS officer and the lawyer, as the complainant and his father had not yielded to their pressure”. He contended that his family ran a hotel in Palampur, and that a relative of one of the two above-mentioned persons had invested in his company’s small-scale projects in and around Palampur.

He also alleged that the lawyer was facing financial difficulties, which led him to “use undue influence by way of force and intimidation through the former IPS officer for extorting money from the complainant and his father”. He alleged he was living in constant fear as the “highest officer of the police department in Himachal was with the people who wanted him killed”.

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.

#Palampur #Supreme Court