‘Saini team your baby, we wash our hands of case’

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Amar Dutt and Justice Kiran Anand, asked the state to look into other petitions against the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Nayagaon rape case.

Meanwhile, Saini sought exit from the investigating team, on the plea that it was inappropriate for him to continue in his post after adverse remarks against him by the Director General of Police.

‘‘The SIT is your baby…we wash our hands of the matter,’’ the judges told the State of Punjab represented by Advocate General R S Cheema.

‘‘You deal with these applications…we will continue to monitor the investigations,’’ the Bench observed.

Dheer’s counsel N B Joshi pleaded with the court for a CBI probe into the case, saying that the DGP was unlikely to order such a probe. The AG intervened to say that any decision in the case would be taken by the state.

The AG, in a previous hearing, had said that the state was willing to delink the case and hand over the probe to an independent agency, including the CBI. Later, the DGP, who was asked to submit his opinion on the matter by the Bench, had also recommended delinking of the case.

Earlier, proceedings started with SIT chief’s counsel Anupam Gupta, whose right to address the court as SIT counsel was challenged in the last hearing, submitting a letter by Saini. The SIT chief ‘‘denied’’ the comments made regarding his investigations in the DGP’s report given to the court.

The IG maintained that he had ‘‘consulted’’ the DGP before making the arrest and added that since the ‘‘DGP had passed adverse comments on me, it would not be appropriate for me to continue with the investigations of the case viz FIR no 99/2003.’’

The Bench observed that this step ‘‘will not end the controversy,’’ and went on to say that they will not take the letter on record. ‘‘You sort out your own matters,’’ they directed the state while referring all the petitions to the state.

‘‘We have perused the report submitted by SIT,’’ the court said. ‘‘The state as well as the complainant petitioners are satisfied with the progress of investigations. During the pendency whereof, some applications have been moved in the matter by various parties expressing reservations in regard to manner in which it (investigations) is proceeding. Since these relate to conduct of investigations, it is for the state to deal with issues raised in accordance with law. Needless to say, if anyone has grievances, he would be within his rights to seek remedy in accordance with law.’’

The state has been asked to present its findings in the court on October 20.