HC QUESTIONS PARALLEL PROBES INTO 2015 FIRING
Says state government’s move has delayed investigation in the case
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday questioned as why the Punjab government opted for parallel probes into police firing at anti-sacrilege protesters at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan in Faridkot district in October 2015 by forming two commissions of inquiry, when FIRs had been registered to probe the incidents. The high court bench of justice Rajan Gupta said due to formation of parallel panels probe got delayed.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday questioned as why the Punjab government opted for parallel probes into police firing at anti-sacrilege protesters at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan in Faridkot district in October 2015 by forming two commissions of inquiry, when FIRs had been registered to probe the incidents.
The high court bench of justice Rajan Gupta said due to formation of parallel panels the probe into the case got delayed.
The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the constitution of the Justice (retd) Ranjit Singh Commission and subsequent government action to register FIRs (first information reports) against some police officers. In one of the petitions, the government’s decision to withdraw FIRs from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also been challenged. Four FIRs were registered in connection with the violence after the sacrilege incidents in 2015.
Two persons had lost their lives in the police firing. The petitions have been filed by Charanjit Singh Sharma and three other police officers, named in these FIRs.
The bench observed that earlier justice (retd) Zora Singh panel was set up by the government and later another panel was constituted. “Three years have passed. Parallel probes delayed the investigations,” the judge said, wondering as to what was the need for setting up commissions, when criminal proceedings had already been initiated in the form of FIRs. The court also wondered as to why the government chose to withdraw the FIRs, earlier recommended CBI for probe through a political decision.
Former union minister, P Chidambaram, who is representing Punjab in these cases reasoned that panel was set up to ascertain facts about the violence and requested the court to vacate stay on proceedings against these police officers named in the FIRs to enable the special investigation team to complete the probe at the earliest.
The court also quizzed the petitioner officers as to why they were averse to probe by state and what objections they have in their participation in investigation and why the probe should be stayed by the court. “SIT can summon anyone … it can add names and later drop, if it did not find anything against a person,” the court said asking petitioners as to why they were opposed to probe by SIT.
Chidambaram too said that officers have been found blameworthy by the panel and had not held them guilty. “SIT can disagree and drop their names. But to say that since panel has named them, they can’t be investigated now in FIRs, can’t be a valid proposition,” he added.
The matter will again come up for hearing on November 22, till then state has assured that it will not proceed against the officers in question. The officers in question are former Moga senior superintendent of police (SSP) Charanjit Singh Sharma, former Mansa SSP Raghbir Singh Sandhu and the then Bajakhana station house officer (SHO) Amarjit Singh Kalar, among others.
Meanwhile state’s advocate general, Atul Nanda submitted a sealed cover report on investigation by SIT, headed by Prabodh Kumar, director, bureau of investigation on its probe into firing incidents. The court perused the report but did not make any comment on the investigation.
SINGLEJUDGE BENCH WONDERS AS TO WHY THE STATE GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO WITHDRAW THE FIRs, EARLIER RECOMMENDED CBI PROBE THROUGH UNDER POLITICAL PRESSURE