Follow Us:
Thursday, January 23, 2020

Restaurant landlord attacked by bouncers in 2016: Chandigarh Police swings into action after 3 years of filing FIR

The landlord had alleged that management of Piccadilly Restaurant, who were tenants on the ground, mezzanine and first floor of his building, started demolishing the original building in order to make changes to suit the restaurant.

Written by Jagpreet Singh Sandhu | Chandigarh | Published: June 11, 2019 10:34:05 am
Chandigarh, Chandigarh news, bouncer attack, bouncer attack Chandigarh, Chandigarh bouncer attack FIR, Bouncer attack FIR, Indian Express news, latest news After three years, Chandigarh Police have finally swung into action, when the Sandhu moved the court in April 2019, to seek action against inaction on part of the police in the matter (Representative image)

Three years after the landlord of a restaurant lounge of Chandigarh alleged of being attacked by 20-25 bouncers, the Chandigarh Police have finally swung into action to probe the matter after the complainant, Karandeep Singh Sandhu, moved to court.

Meanwhile, the police reportedly identified one of the bouncer, who was allegedly involved in the crime. However, the accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the district Court of Chandigarh with directions to join investigation.

As per the FIR registered on May 1, 2016, the complainant, Karandeep Singh Sandhu, landlord of Piccadilly Restaurant (Blue Ice) at Sector 17, Chandigarh, alleged that management of Piccadilly Restaurant, who were tenants on the ground, mezzanine and first floor of his building, started demolishing the original building in order to make changes to suit the restaurant.

They were stopped by Sandhu from carrying out any kind of re-construction work and he even got a notice from court restraining them from further demolition. On April 30, 2016, when the accused continued to demolish the property illegally, Sandhu was called by one of his employee, who upon reaching the site, started clicking the photographs of demolition work being carried out at his property. However, at that moment, 20-25 bouncers of the Piccadilly Restaurant, tried to snatch his phone and also attacked him. When he tried to make a run for the nearest police post- Neelam police post- he was held back by the bouncers and was reportedly threatened.

Later, Sandhu submitted a formal complaint to the Chandigarh Police and an FIR was lodged against unidentified persons under sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 382 (Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft) of the Indian Penal Code.

Now, after three years, Chandigarh Police have finally swung into action, when the Sandhu moved the court in April 2019, to seek action against inaction on part of the police in the matter. Advocate Arshdeep Bhullar, counsel for Sandhu, argued in Court of CJM Abhishek Phutela that after three years, the police were yet to take any action against the accused. He pleaded that the police be directed to submit a status report in the matter in court.

Though the police are yet to submit a status report of the case, the court was apprised during a hearing that the investigation was in progress and one person reportedly involved in the crime had also been traced by the police.

The police, on May 28, 2019, visited the residence of Gurpreet Singh, a resident of Sector 41, Chandigarh. Advocate Gurdit Saini, counsel for Gurpreet Singh, argued that the police went to Singh’s house and took details of Singh from his family members.

The police also told them their son was booked in a case and would be required to come down to Sector 17 police station. Singh, assuming that he may be arrested in the case, moved an anticipatory bail plea.

Advocate Saini, during the anticipatory bail plea, argued that police was trying to falsely implicate and rope Singh in the case as he is neither named in the FIR nor was there any attribution to offence on his part. Moreover, the matter is related to May 1, 2016, and the police never called Singh for the purpose of investigation of case until May 28, 2019. The lawyer argued that no notice under160 Cr.P.C was ever issued by the police to Singh.

The Prosecution, however, opposed Singh’s anticipatory bail plea, and argued that Gurpreet Singh came in his car with other bouncers at the spot of incident on April 30, 2016, and that he may be the accused in the matter.

The court, after hearing the arguments, held that since the Prosecution was suspicious of Gurpreet Singh, he may actually be the accused in matter. The court has allowed Singh bail and directed has directed him to join the investigation. Singh complied to the same on Monday.

For all the latest Chandigarh News, download Indian Express App

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement