Police seem to have fabricated case against ‘drug peddler’: Delhi court

However, in his deposition, Ranjit Singh Kandola alleged that as he was being brought to Delhi on the Jammu Mail train, officers escorting him got drunk.

Written by Abhishek Angad | New Delhi | Published: January 7, 2018 1:53:09 am
School to refund Rs 50,000 & Rs 15,000 fine for forcing student to take private tuition Judge Ajay Pandey said that the conduct of the police officers, and the contradictions brought on record, were “sufficient to reflect that police has fabricated facts and circumstances of the case”.

Acquitting a man on charges of absconding from police, a Delhi court has indicted the Delhi Police, saying that the “entire case against him seems fabricated”.

The man, alleged drug peddler Ranjit Singh Kandola, was accused of fleeing while the 3rd Battalion of the Delhi Armed Police was escorting him from Punjab to Delhi on September 25, 2012. He had been produced before a judge in Hoshiyarpur, and was being brought back to Tihar.

A case, registered at Old Delhi Railway Station the same day, was transferred to the Special Cell on September 30. Around 11 am the same day, Kandola and his associate were “arrested” from a hotel in Mahipalpur.

However, in his deposition, Kandola alleged that as he was being brought to Delhi on the Jammu Mail train, officers escorting him got drunk. “The train stopped for three hours and the officers got down… they could not be found,” he alleged.

He further claimed that he called his father, who alerted the Special Cell about the incident. He claimed Special Cell personnel then brought him to Delhi. However, it was later alleged by police that he had absconded, and was arrested on September 30 “with contraband” — claims that Kandola denied.

Acquitting Kandola of the charges, Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Pandey said that even if he was “unable to prove his defence”, the conduct of the police officers, and the contradictions brought on record, were “sufficient to reflect that police has fabricated facts and circumstances of the case”. The court also noted several “inconsistencies” such as:

1. The case was transferred to Special Cell on September 30. But the court said it was “unbelievable” that the file was transferred in the morning, and the accused was arrested at 11 am. “Court fails to understand that when, after midnight of September 29-30, the order of transfer of investigation was made and everything moved at a missile speed to hit the target on September 30 morning (sic),” the court said.

2. According to the court, the investigating officer of Old Delhi railway police station visited the accused’s residence on September 29, and got to know about these allegations of the officers getting drunk from the accused’s father. The court said that “in order to save police officers, investigation was abruptly shown to be taken over by officials of Special Cell and the accused was shown as arrested with narcotics”. The court said this was concealed from the chargesheet filed by the Special Cell.

3. According to the court, the accused’s aide said he never stayed in the hotel from where both were “arrested” and that hotel records had been fabricated. The court stated that the hotel records could have been falsified as there was no public witness and no CCTV cameras to show the accused had checked in.

For all the latest Delhi News, download Indian Express App

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement