Ex-SSP, 3 more cops move HC, seek CBI probe in sacrilege cases

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 22

Former Senior Superintendent of Police Charanjit Singh Sharma and three other police officers on Monday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a probe by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation into the four FIRs registered in connection with the sacrilege incidents.

The petitioners claimed that abuse and misuse of law, power and authority was rampant. As such, free, fair, impartial and unbiased investigation was not expected from Punjab Police. In the petition filed through counsel Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, the petitioners claimed that they were involved in handling the deteriorating law and order situation pursuant to the sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib in 2015.

After the incident, an inquiry commission was constituted to look into the matter under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. On the basis of its recommendations, they had been implicated by the State of Punjab without evidence, and without investigation, only due to political considerations, they claimed.

Sidhu said a notification earlier passed for transferring the investigation of the FIRs registered in the matter was withdrawn due to political considerations. Aggrieved, the petitioners were filing the writ petition.

Going into the background of the matter, the petitioners claimed that “two individuals of an illegal and unlawful assembly had died after the police force, dealing with the assembly, was shot at and attacked”.

The Commission submitted its report in June 2016 after which the inquiry officer was “substituted” and the second report by the new inquiry officer was submitted on June 30, 2018.

Sidhu said the petitioners, Charanjit Singh Sharma, Bikram Jit Singh, Pardeep Singh and Amarjit Singh, were named as accused in the FIR registered at Baja Khana police station in Faridkot district on October 21, 2015, for murder, attempt to murder and other offences under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Arms Act.

They were named accused “without any concrete evidence and only on the basis of recommendations of the commission, which is not permissible as per law, and by ignoring the facts surrounding the incident, including that the police party was shot at and that various police personnel were injured in the incident”.