Private car, secret routes: CBI charge-sheet reveals how cops avoided detection during abduction of Chandigarh dentist

The agency has named nine policemen as accused: Inspector Harinder Singh Sekhon, SI Suresh Kumar, ASI Ajmer Singh and Balwant, Head Constables Anil Kumar and Rinku Ram, and Constables Vikas Hooda, Subhash and Pardeep.

The chargesheet portrays the alleged incident as a coordinated operation involving two police teams, a private vehicle, and fabricated documentation.

According to the CBI probe, Dhawan had arrived at the District Court Complex in Sector 43 on January 7, 2022, to comply with a high court direction requiring him to join an investigation at 11 am. He entered through a rear approach around 9.50 am with an associate and approached a notary for attestation of affidavits before waiting nearby for the paperwork to be completed.

The CBI alleges that between 10.20 am and 10.30 am, a privately owned Hyundai i20 car — reportedly owned by accused Constable Hooda’s cousin — arrived and parked close to where he was standing.

As per the charge-sheet, the occupants of the car were later identified as officers of Crime Branch in plain clothes: Hooda (driver), ASl Ajmer Singh (front passenger), Head Constable Anil Kumar (rear left), and Constable Subhash (rear right). Then, Anil Kumar allegedly confirmed Dhawan’s identity and monitored his movements before intercepting him minutes later.

At about 10.32 am, as he walked toward an exit gate, three policemen allegedly overpowered him from behind and pushed him into the car. Inside, he was seated between two officers while another drove. During the brief struggle, the charge-sheet claims, he slipped his notarised affidavits into a seat-back pouch — documents later cited as corroborative evidence because they were allegedly left behind by the officers.

A witness trailing him reportedly saw the incident unfold but could not intervene.

Hours on internal routes

Rather than taking him directly to a police station, the team allegedly spent three hours from 11 am to 2 pm, driving through interior lanes to avoid surveillance. Dhawan’s phone and belongings were said to have been taken, and he was not informed of the grounds for detention. The agency claims the officers’ route selection indicated an attempt to prevent digital or visual tracking.

During the stop in Sector 44-C, the CBI claimed the dentist remained confined inside the car under guard while some officers ate food purchased from a roadside vendor. It was during this halt that he allegedly overheard the remark about “work” at the court already being completed.

Second team and custody trail

The CBI, in its chargesheet, further mentions that around 5.30 pm, the Hyundai i20 was brought to an area near ISBT 43, where it was parked approximately 50-60 yards from the entry point. After a wait of about 15-20 minutes, a Mahindra Bolero arrived, carrying Inspector Harinder Singh Sekhon and SI Suresh Kumar.

This second team, named as Team 2, took custody of Dhawan from the first team and instructed them to leave. Between 6 pm and 7 pm, he was taken to the ISBT-43 Police Post, where CCTV cameras captured the entire movement, including Inspector Sekhon and SI Suresh Kumar escorting him upstairs to the first floor. Inside the police post, they prepared a false Daily Diary Report (DDR No. 28) to fabricate a story regarding how the dentist had allegedly come into their custody.

Arrest memo and medical episode

At about 8 pm, a formal arrest memo was allegedly prepared without informing a family member or independent witness, with a policeman instead made to sign as witness. During the detention, Dhawan reportedly suffered an asthma attack and repeatedly requested medical assistance before being taken after 9 pm to GMSH-16 for treatment.

The CBI further alleged that later that night his personal belongings were handed to an acquaintance who was pressured to sign documents despite not witnessing the arrest. The dentist was then taken to a police station in Sector 11, different from the one that had registered the FIR against him, which the agency claims was intended “thereby deliberately concealing his actual arrest location and time”.

CCTV evidence and gaps

The charge-sheet notes that although multiple institutions around the court complex had functioning CCTV systems, only limited footage was preserved.

The CBI in its investigation has revealed that from the available footage, only the movement of Notary Advocate is clearly visible, showing him entering the complex after subsequently returning with receiving documents from Dhawan and the register.

Dhawan and the Crime Branch officials are not seen in any of the preserved footage, as the relevant angles or cameras did not capture their movement. This creates a visible gap in visual evidence within the court complex, despite this being the most critical time frame, the charge-sheet mentioned.