Why MLA not arrested: HC, victim
DGP says ‘Nobody defending Sengar. CBI will decide on arrest’; MLA booked under POCSO Act, too
LUCKNOW/ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad high court on Thursday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government’s handling of the Unnao rape case, asking the advocate general why the accused BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar had not been arrested even after an FIR was lodged against him.
The rape victim, too, wanted to know “why the delay in arresting Sengar.” She said: “A case has been registered but why has he not been arrested,”
But director general of police OP Singh said: “Nobody is defending him (Kuldeep Singh Sengar). All we are saying is that we have to hear both sides. Now that the case has been given to the CBI, they will decide on the arrest.”
Late in the evening, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued a notification regarding the transfer of Unnao cases to CBI.
IG CBI Lucknow GK Goswami confirmed that the anti-corruption wing of CBI, Lucknow was in the process of registering the Unnao cases at its unit here. He said a team had been formed and it would start investigation from Friday.
Legal experts, meanwhile, termed the delay in arrest as “bad in law”, adding that the police was “clearly” favouring the ruling party legislator in this case.
Earlier on Thursday, the police lodged an FIR at Makhi police station in Unnao against Sengar charging him with rape, criminal intimidation and kidnapping of a minor girl. A senior police official said the MLA had been charged under Sections 363 and 366 (kidnapping of minor girl), 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). “Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act have also been included in the FIR,” he said.
The high court bench, comprising chief justice DB Bhosale and justice Suneet Kumar, reserved the order for April 13 (Friday) after hearing advocate general (AG) as well as senior advocate and amicus curiae Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, who had sought a court-monitored investigation into the case.
The AG informed the court that an application was sent to the chief minister’s office on August 17, 2017, in which allegations of rape were made against the MLA.
He said the application was forwarded to the officers concerned in Unnao for appropriate action. “Since no FIR was lodged by the police at that time, action is being taken against the errant officers as per departmental rules,” he said.
When the bench asked if any arrests had been made in this connection, the AG said three of the accused, including the MLA’s brother Atul Sengar, had been arrested.
The bench asked the AG when the government proposed to arrest the Sengar, to which he replied that he was not in a position make any statement on the matter.
“The police will proceed in accordance with law only after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses,” he said. On several occasions, the AG said that in UP, police only made arrests after conducting investigation.
Referring to the report of SIT, headed by ADG Rajeev Krishna, the court said, “Medical officers and the police were hand-inglove with the accused and you acted against the officers on the basis of this (SIT) report. But to arrest the rape accused you need further investigation.”
“The police are not ready to register the FIR of a minor rape victim. In spite of SIT report, you are repeating that we can only take action after investigation. If this is the conduct of the police in the state, whom a victim will approach to register a complaint? If this is the stand you are repeatedly taking, then we will be forced to observe in our order that law and order has collapsed in the state,” the bench observed.
Senior advocate GS Chaturvedi said that SIT conducted preliminary investigation and then filed a report after which FIR was lodged but the state government wanted to conduct further investigation before arresting the accused MLA.
In cases involving heinous crimes like rape against a minor, the accused should have been immediately arrested, he said.
“On the one hand, the AG is seeking more time for investigation in the rape case before arresting the accused, while on the other, the victim’s father was arrested for possessing illegal firearm without any investigation. He later died in custody,” Chaturvedi argued.
The AG requested the court to adjourn the hearing to give police some time to investigate the case so that action could be taken if some prima facie case was made out against the accused. “You took eight months to register the FIR. Do you want us to wait for eight more months so that you may investigate the case further?” the court asked.
The bench had on Wednesday taken cognisance of a letter petition by Chaturvedi seeking a court-monitored investigation of the Unnao rape case and the death of the girl’s father in judicial custody.