1991 fake encounter in Anandpur Sahib: Court rejects CBI closure report, orders fresh probe

The court underlined that this case is not limited to the killing of one individual but also concerns the disappearance and possible murder of four other innocent people

By: Express News Service

Mohali | September 1, 2025 12:26 AM IST

The court has instructed the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, to pass fresh orders within three weeks and ensure further action in accordance with law (Archive)

A fresh twist has emerged in the alleged fake encounter case of 1991 in Punjab’s Anandpur Sahib region. The court of Judge Baljinder Singh Sra has dismissed the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and directed a reinvestigation along with legal action.
The case pertains to the killing of Jagdish Singh, his wife, mother, three-year-old daughter, and two-month-old son in what was claimed to be a police encounter. The court has instructed the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, to pass fresh orders within three weeks and ensure further action in accordance with law.

The case background

The original complainant, Paramjit Singh, alias Pamma, alleged that on the night of May 21, 1991, the police raided his brother Jagdish Singh’s farmhouse and killed the entire family. At that time, Jagdish Singh, an employee of the Public Works Department (PWD), was residing with his family at Agampur village in Anandpur Sahib.

An inquiry conducted by the then SDM Prithi Chand confirmed that Jagdish Singh was tortured before being shot dead. The post-mortem report also revealed severe injury marks on his body.

Missing family members

The investigation revealed that Jagdish Singh’s mother Surjit Kaur, wife Baljinder Kaur, and the two children were also present at the farmhouse that night. Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed seeing them alive at the scene. However, they were not mentioned in the FIR, and their whereabouts remain unknown to this day.

CBI filed closure report four times

The CBI, after its probe, filed four separate closure reports citing lack of sufficient evidence. The court, however, found the investigation faulty, noting that the agency had failed to seriously pursue the disappearance of the four family members. The judge observed that since the victims were last seen in police custody, the responsibility for their disappearance lies squarely on the police officers.

‘Not just one murder,’ says court

The court underlined that this case is not limited to the killing of one individual but also concerns the disappearance and possible murder of four other innocent people. Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments, the judge emphasised that courts must adopt a different approach in such cases where direct evidence is often difficult to obtain. He noted that the investigating officer’s opinion is not binding on the court, which must independently assess the evidence.

From the homepage