Businessman out on bail after spending night in police station for ‘avoiding’ collision with SDM car

A 26-year-old businessman,Vikrant Kumar,had to spend a night in the Sector 34 Police Station for reportedly avoiding a head-on collision with another car which belonged to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Director Tanvi Garg.

Written by Express News Service | Chandigarh | Published: April 19, 2013 1:21 am

A 26-year-old businessman,Vikrant Kumar,had to spend a night in the Sector 34 Police Station for reportedly avoiding a head-on collision with another car which belonged to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East) and Director (IT) Tanvi Garg.

Kumar,a resident of Sector 44,was arrested on the complaint of the SDM’s driver on Wednesday evening. On Thursday,however,he was released on bail by the court of the same SDM that listed the case for April 30.

Kumar claimed the SDM’s driver overtook a car which was parked on the roadside and entered into his lane. “I stopped immediately as the SDM’s car came in front of my jeep,” he said. On getting bail after paying a surety of Rs 10,000,Kumar asked the SDM,“Is driving in my own lane a fault? Please tell me what wrong did I do?”

However,the SDM asked the security personnel of the court to take Kumar out of the courtroom and called for Jagdish Singh Diwan,who had given the surety for Kumar. “You are his surety and he is misbehaving with me in the court itself,” the SDM said. “Even then you expect me to bail him?”

On this,Diwan said: “He (Vikrant) is right. He needs to know his fault for which he was kept in police custody for more than 12 hours. He was driving his car in his lane.”

“Were you present when the incident happened?” the SDM asked Diwan. To this,Diwan said,“I was not,but you were. So you can explain what happened.”

Instead of explaining what really happened,the agitated SDM asked his security personnel to take Diwan out of the court and claimed,“Who told you that I was in the car? It is not true,I was not in the car.”

However,a private security official of a hospital,an eyewitness,told Chandigarh Newsline,“I saw the incident. Two vehciles were coming towards each other from opposite directions and one of them was a government vehicle. Both the vehicles were about to collide when they stopped. A few seconds later,both vehicles went their ways without the drivers speaking a word.”

Speaking to Chandigarh Newsline,Kumar said,“I was driving in my lane and for that,I had to spend a night in police custody. I should not have hit the brakes and should have let the collision happen. In that case,sitting in the police station for a night would have been justified.”

Kumar claimed he had seen the SDM sitting in the car on the back seat. “Later,her personal security officer (PSO) Rajesh and driver Harjit Singh told me in front of the police officers that she was in a hurry to receive (former President) APJ Abdul Kalam. They also told me that if she was not in a hurry,she would have taught me a lesson there and then.”

“This kind of behaviour is not expected of an IAS officer. Losing control inside the courtroom and asking the other person to leave is totally unacceptable. We will approach the Advisor and will also move the sessions court,” Diwan said after the court proceedings.

Following the registration of a case on the complaint made by the SDM’s driver,Kumar was arrested at 8 pm and was booked under Section 107/51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The driver,Harjit Singh,stated in his complaint that Kumar had entered into a scuffle with him and PSO Rajesh. However,there are no sections relating to assault on a public servant.

‘Write whatever you want to’

When contacted,SDM Tanvi Garg said,“I am sitting with ex-President (APJ Abdul Kalam) and cannot talk right now. You may write whatever you want to.” However,a written communication issued by the Director Public Relations later in the day stated that Garg “had no involvement in the said conflict between office staff and the accused booked under Section 107/151 of CrPC”,and that neither she was “present in the vehicle when the conflict arose” nor had she “any connection with the police action”. Asserting that information used in news reports about the incident was “false” and the “factual sequence of events” had not been highlighted,the SDM said no clarification was sought from her.

For all the latest Chandigarh News, download Indian Express App

    Live Cricket Scores & Results