The Haryana Police has conceded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the contents of an FIR are false in an NDPS case in which the police personnel, in a CCTV footage, are allegedly seen raiding the house of a local, who was said to have been arrested during “chance patrolling” only few hours later.
As per the allegations, the police had raided the accused’s house at 2 pm on September 20 while the recovery of drugs from him was shown made at 6:30 pm. The accused in his bail plea has said the police planted the opium and wrongfully arrested him. However, the police in its case has said the accused was caught with 412 grams of opium in his vehicle.
Superintendent of Police Karnal Surinder Singh Bhoria in an affidavit has now informed the court that the version of the occurrence as recorded in the FIR has been found to be completely false and a departmental enquiry has been initiated against ASI Parveen Kumar of the Detective Staff, Karnal.
The court earlier had directed the SP to personally respond in the case.
The HC has also been informed that the tower locations of the mobile phones of the Naib Tehsildar, Kanungo and the driver of the vehicle accompanying the Patwari and also of the Patwari were found at different places to the location from which the accused is stated to have been arrested with contraband.
A single bench Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that it was a matter of “deep regret” that even gazetted officers, who have a responsibility under the NDPS Act to authenticate the recovery of any contraband, are seen to be “completely abrogating their responsibility” and signing documents apparently without actually going to the spot from where the alleged recovery is shown to have been made.
In an order, Justice Singh, asked the government to inform the court regarding the action being taken against the officer. “The additional chief secretary or principal secretary-cum-financial commissioner, revenue, Government of Haryana, is directed to go into the matter as to why even the Naib Tehsildar (seemingly) colluded with police officials and signed (as a gazetted officer) on a document that is purported to have been signed at a place where the Naib Tehsildar was not present,” the order reads.
The court also noted that in an earlier order it had sought affidavits from Punjab and Haryana DGPs and asked them as to why it should not be made absolutely mandatory for all police parties going out from police stations – whether on patrolling, on investigation or for any other purpose – to disclose their mobile numbers in the DDR “to determine as to whether the story given in the FIRs is actually authentic or not, with the mobile tower locations of those mobile phones to be verified wherever there is a doubt”.