Tribune Information Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, March 3
Lower than a month after a fact-finding inquiry was ordered right into a case the place a Superintendent of Police nearly granted anticipatory bail to an accused after it was denied as much as the Supreme Courtroom, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has known as for particulars of disciplinary authorities within the case of then SP (EOW) Neha Yadav. Justice Deepak Sibal additionally known as for the main points within the case of then DSP (EOW) Sukhraj Katewa and investigating officer Harbans Singh.
Because the case got here up for resumed listening to, Justice Sibal took on document a preliminary fact-finding inquiry report filed by the UT DGP in a sealed cowl. “Earlier than any additional orders could be handed within the challenge, the counsel showing for the UT is directed to provide the related process/guidelines as to who’re the disciplinary authorities within the case of the then SP (EOW) Neha Yadav, the then DSP (EOW) Sukhraj Katewa and the investigating officer of the case SI Harbans Singh,” Justice Sibal ordered.
The case will now come up for additional listening to within the final week of this month.
Within the standing report filed by the UT earlier than Justice Sibal on a earlier date of listening to, it was acknowledged that Anup Nargas and Sanjeev Bhatia had lured the complainant within the case to take a position Rs50 lakh in an organization floated by them. Such allurement was made by displaying the corporate’s solid share valuation certificates. The report added each Nargas and Bhatia embezzled the quantity after the complainant invested Rs50 lakh.
Justice Sibal noticed Nargas’ anticipatory bail earlier than UT Classes Courtroom was opposed by the prosecution, saying that he had performed a significant function within the forging the corporate’s share valuation certificates. It was added that he, together with Bhatia, defrauded a number of individuals, together with the complainant. As on date they’d embezzled over Rs344 lakh.
Dismissing the plea vide order dated November 13, 2020, the Classes Courtroom expressed opinion that Nargas’ custodial interrogation was vital. The Excessive Courtroom too was of the opinion that Nargas’ custodial interrogation was required and rejected his plea by means of order dated December 22, 2020. The Supreme Courtroom, too, on December 30, 2020, dismissed his particular depart petition with an additional path to give up inside two weeks and apply for normal bail.
Justice Sibal added that the Classes Courtroom, the Excessive Courtroom and the Supreme Courtroom have been concurrently of the view that Nargas’ custodial interrogation was vital. As a substitute of surrendering after the dismissal of his SLP, Nargas made a illustration to the then SP, Financial Offences Wing, reiterating the stand he had taken earlier than the three courts.
The SP made a noting on the illustration directing a DSP to look into the matter with an additional path to the investigating officer to affix Nargas in investigation. Because of such noting in a non-bailable offence, the SP nearly granted anticipatory bail to Nargas concurrently denied to him by the three courts.
