Bailable warrants issued against GMCH students

The court last month had summoned the duo as accused in the case after father of the deceased student had moved an application.

Jaspreet (21) had committed suicide by hanging himself in the library of the college in 2007.

The police had booked Dr N K Goel,Head of Department of Community Medicine,on charges of abetting suicide after an inquiry found him guilty.

The student had left behind a suicide note blaming the professor,Deepak and Ajay for allegedly passing casteist remarks against him.

Charan Singh,the deceased’s father,who works as an assistant in the Punjab Architecture Department,alleged that doctors at GMCH-32 had deliberately awarded less marks to Jaspreet,which played a vital role in aggravating his depression.

The police,while nailing Goel,had filed a cancellation report saying there was no evidence against Deepak and Ajay,which was challenged by Charan Singh.

The court had then summoned the two students. They were directed to appear before the court today but failed to do so despite serving of summons.

Inspector cheating case: Six cops say they don’t trust judge,move HC

The cheating case involving a Chandigarh Police inspector took an interesting turn on Wednesday after six police officers raised apprehension that they would not get justice from the judge presiding over the case.

An application,seeking a stay on the proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (first class) Sunil Kumar,was filed by the six police officers in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday.

Taking stock of their apprehensions,Justice M M S Bedi sought comments of the lower court judge and asked the six to file affidavits. On Tuesday,the police officers had sought transfer of the case from Chandigarh. They had said a fair trial was unlikely the court of JMIC Sunil Kumar.

Around 3:45 pm on Wednesday,JMIC Kumar sent his comments,strongly denying the accusations. “The report is contradictory. The judge has said that he had given the petitioners time to argue,otherwise appropriate orders would be passed,” Justice Bedi said.

Subsequently,Justice Bedi questioned the petitioners,asking them why they were so adamant in getting the case stayed.

“Let the judge decide the case. Either he will allow it or decline it,” Justice Bedi said. “You have a remedy. You can challenge the order. When the High Court has already directed the trial court to decide the case,why are you running away?”

The High Court will decide on the application at 10 am on Thursday.

The matter pertains to a criminal case against inspector Ram Gopal,posted as SHO in the Sector-19 police station at present. It has been alleged that in 1997,the officer — a sub-inspector then — had submitted a fake certificate to get a promotion.

A preliminary inquiry conducted by DSP (CID) Satbir Singh had found him guilty. Another inquiry conducted by SP Madhur Verma had absolved him of the charges.

After a closure report was submitted in court,six police officers had challenged the decision.

Two acquitted in graft case

A CBI special court today acquitted an assistant and a clerk of the district court in a graft case. Assistant Avtar Singh and clerk Harnek Singh were booked by the CBI in 2004 for allegedly demanding Rs 1,000 as a bribe to allow a complainant to see the case file. The two were later arrested by the CBI from the court premises.

After hearing arguments of both sides,CBI Special Judge Darshan Singh acquitted the two.

The CBI,in its case,had alleged that Avtar had received Rs 1,000 as a bribe. However,he threw the money while climbing the stairs in the court building suspecting a CBI team chasing him. But later,he allegedly sent Harnek to retrieve the money from near the stairs. The CBI also alleged Harnek collected the money and took it to Avtar’s room.

Defence counsel A S Sukhija,however,termed the trap as “illegitimate” and “farce”. “The CBI had arrested Harnek from Avtar’s room while the latter was arrested when he entered the room contrary to the claims of the CBI. Even other court employee had supported defence counsel’s claims in this regard,” he maintained.