HC rejects dismissed Punjab AIG Raj Jit Singh's bail plea

Chandigarh, August 3

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has turned down the anticipatory bail plea filed by dismissed police officer Raj Jit Singh Hundal after observing that the allegations are serious and his custodial interrogation will necessarily be required.

Probe needed

The petitioner appeared to have been indulging in the trade of drugs, instead of being at the forefront to break the nexus of the smugglers and drug trade. It was on this account that his role was seriously required to be investigated

The HC said this was for finding out the manner in which the petitioner was operating, along with his subordinate officials, and subverting the system he was supposed to head in a positive manner.

Hundal had moved the court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered on July 12, 2012, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the IPC at the STF police station in Mohali.

After hearing Punjab Additional Advocate-General Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala and rival contentions, Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan asserted the Division Bench had been monitoring the proceedings for the past decade. It would be a miscarriage of justice that at the end of it, and on the investigation conducted by senior officials, the petitioner was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail as the Bench on March 28 had given liberty to the state to take action on the reports submitted in drug cases.

The Bench observed the petitioner was given several opportunities to project his stand before senior officials, but he failed to do so. The acquiring of “expensive properties” around Chandigarh during the period he was posted at Tarn Taran –– a border district and facing the largest number of matters under the NDPS Act –– was serious matter.

The Bench added the petitioner appeared to have been indulging in the trade of drugs instead of being at the forefront to break the nexus of the smugglers and drug trade. It was on this account that his role was seriously required to be investigated as apparently he had been “running with hare and hunting with the hounds”.

The Bench added the investigation, as such, could not be curtailed while granting interim protection to the petitioner, who was a well-seasoned “customer”. Granting any such benefit would lead to curtailing the right of the investigating officers to get to the bottom of the sordid story of drug trafficking, whereby involvement of the police officials in pushing innocent persons into false cases had been uncovered.