Pataudi’s hunting gun in daughter Soha’s name: cops

But DSP Sumit Kuhar, who is in charge of the case, insists the gun is in Soha’s name. ‘‘It’s a retainer licence (means it’s a weapon transferred to a family member,’’ said Kuhar. He said that summons have gone to M A K Pataudi to appear before the police on June 10.

Police said the gun in question is a 0.22-mm (Serial number 91501) with a telescope and 26 rounds.

When asked about the discrepancy, Manhas insisted it was the son while Kuhar said it was Soha. Neither Soha nor Saif was available for comment.

‘‘The government asked me to submit a report,’’ said Manhas. ‘‘I visited (Jhajjar) on June 6. Since the beginning, the police is handling the case wrongly,’’ said Manhas.

In the report sent to the state’s Principal Conservator, a copy of which has been obtained by The Indian Express, Manhas says: ‘‘…The local police has been handling the case wrongly and acting ultra vires to the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.’’ He cites the following examples:

• Police as well as local forest and wildlife officials did not bother to contact senior officers of the forest/wildlife department.

• Only after the media got on to the case, were the senior officers of the department informed by their subordinates. Consultation with him, Manhas claims, is ‘‘essential and legal requirement in the case’’ under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

• Most of the investigation being done by the police will, therefore, not hold in court.

• Vital clues and evidence have been ‘‘destroyed’’ because the police released the offenders and the two vehicles on June 3.

• No postmortem report has been sent to the warden even after three days.

• The state and the Centre should be allowed to handle the case as per the provisions of the Wildlife Act so that the evidence collected ‘‘will be used to build up a proper and solid case in the court.’’

When contacted, Jhajjar district SP Hanif Qureshi said: ‘‘The chief wildlife warden should write to the police if there are any loopholes. I don’t think there is any loophole,’’ said Jhajjar district SP Hanif Qureshi. ‘‘The postmortem was done by the wildlife people and they buried the carcasses after taking a video, a copy of which was given to the police. When forest officials are there (on the spot) and the seniors don’t know what is going on, then it is an internal matter.’’ According to Manhas’s report, the blackbuck—Haryana’s state animal and listed as Schedule 1—was killed in farmer Amrit’s field in village Kirlod on the Jhajjar-Rewari road about 20 km from Jhajjar.

The ‘‘wildlife offenders’’ and vehicles were intercepted by SHO/DSP Jhajjar Sumit Kuhar at 9.30 pm on the night of June 3. Kuhar, according to the report, after ‘‘general interrogation,’’ released the eight offenders and kept the two firearms and cartridges (with 46 rounds). The next day at 10.30 am the police contacted local wildlife inspector Attar Singh who sent the carcasses for postmortem to a local vet. These carcasses were disposed of after constituting a special committee by the local deputy commissioner on June 4. Manhas says that no senior official was taken into confidence until that point. A Swiss knife, a spade amd two searchlights were also siezed. Pataudi and seven others have been accused of allegedly hunting a black buck and two hares in Jhajjar district.