Multi-crore heist: Gurgaon court directs Haryana STF to conduct IPS officer’s lie detector test in Delhi

In an order Friday, Additional Sessions Judge Tarun Singal said, “… apprehension raised by the applicant that test may not be conducted in a fair or impartial manner is not totally misplaced.”

The court said the accused stated that on July 11 and 12, when he went to FSL Gandhinagar, he was not permitted to get the said test conducted in the presence of his lawyer and the FSL lab directed that name of the lawyer must be mentioned in the order. He was informed that the lawyer shall not be permitted to remain present during preliminary proceedings. On July 25, the court allowed an application moved by the accused and directed that the test be conducted in presence of his lawyers as per directions of the Supreme Court in an earlier case.

The accused appeared before an officer at Gandhinagar on August 2, where the officer apprised the applicant that the advocate will not be allowed to be present during preliminary interrogation and would only be allowed to sit in the adjoining room during the recording of the lie detector test.

“It was further informed that the applicant would be made to sit in a soundproof room and the advocate can only see him whereas the applicant would not be able to see his counsel or feel his presence in the room where test will be conducted. The applicant raised objection to the said conduct of FSL but in vain and they informed him that test would be conducted as per their procedure. The applicant submitted that STF on its own had got the test of Dr Gurpratap Singh (one of the accused in the case) conducted from FSL, CBI, New Delhi, but in the case of the applicant, they are trying to influence the results… by choosing FSL as per their convenience,” the court said, listing grounds of objection of the accused.

In its reply filed on September 21, the prosecution along with the report of FSL Gandhinagar admitted that the accused was present in their lab between July 12 and 16 and between August 2 and 3 and during the second time, the accused and his advocate insisted to remain present in the instrument room. The prosecution said as per office procedure, an advocate is allowed to see the polygraph test procedure through the one-way mirror of the polygraph lab, but the accused gave in writing that he be allowed to avail of his legal remedies.

The court said that from the reply of FSL, it was apparent that from July 12 to July 16, the polygraph test could not be conducted as the lab did not permit the preliminary interrogation to be conducted in presence of an advocate and raised the frivolous objection that name of the advocate is not mentioned in the order of the court dated May 31.

“Thereafter, specific order regarding the same was passed on 25.7.2022. However even thereafter, the advocate was not allowed to be present in instrument room and was allowed to sit in chamber and to see procedure through a one-way mirror. At this juncture, specific objection has been raised by applicant/accused in his application that said room was soundproof room. However, in reply to the said averment, the reply submitted by the prosecution or by the FSL Gandhinagar is conspicuously silent,” the court said.

The court further said, “As such, it cannot be determined whether the instrument room was soundproof room or not. In case room was soundproof, then presence of advocate in instrument room was meaningless. Adopting such procedure is blatant disregard for the order of the Honourable Apex Court.”