Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking transfer of the investigation into the alleged suicide of senior Haryana-cadre IPS officer Y Puran Kumar to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that no case had been made out for interference when a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was already conducting the probe.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, while rejecting the plea, noted that the SIT, headed by the Inspector General of Chandigarh Police, was formed promptly on October 10, three days after the officer’s death on October 7.
“From the aforesaid, it does not appear that there is any unnecessary delay or laxity in the conduct of the investigation. In view of the above, no case for handing over the investigation to any independent agency is made out,” the court held, dismissing the petition.
The PIL, filed by a Ludhiana resident claiming to be a public-spirited citizen, alleged that the probe into the IPS officer Y Puran Kumar’s “mysterious” death had not progressed since none of the senior officers named in the suicide note had been questioned, and sought its transfer to CBI to restore public confidence.
Appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, Senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji questioned both the maintainability and bona fides of the PIL. He informed the court that the petitioner had filed the plea merely days after the incident, without following the High Court’s own rules for PILs or making any specific allegation of bias or mala fide against the Chandigarh Police.
“This is nothing but a publicity stunt. The police acted with promptitude, an FIR was registered on October 9, and an SIT was constituted the very next day,” Jhanji submitted.
Providing a detailed status report, Jhanji informed the bench that 14 people had been named in the FIR, and that 22 witnesses had been examined so far under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The SIT, he said, had collected 21 exhibits, and secured CCTV footage, which had been sent for forensic examination.
The bench noted that despite being asked at the previous hearing, counsel for the petitioner had failed to cite a single Supreme Court judgment to show that the case met the guidelines for transferring a probe to an independent agency.
Dismissing the petition, the court concluded that the investigation was being carried out in a transparent and timely manner by the SIT, and that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify intervention.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
