CBI court rejects SI’s plea for release of mobile phone, I-card | punjab$chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 25, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

CBI court rejects SI’s plea for release of mobile phone, I-card

A local CBI court on Thursday turned down a plea of sub-inspector Surinder Kumar, one of the accused in Rs 70 lakh economic offences wing (EOW) graft case, regarding the release of his mobile phone and

punjab Updated: Jan 08, 2016 10:12 IST
Nikhil Sharma
A local CBI court on Thursday turned down a plea of sub-inspector Surinder Kumar, one of the accused in  Rs 70 lakh economic offences wing (EOW) graft case, regarding the release of his mobile phone and identity card.
A local CBI court on Thursday turned down a plea of sub-inspector Surinder Kumar, one of the accused in Rs 70 lakh economic offences wing (EOW) graft case, regarding the release of his mobile phone and identity card.(HT Photo )

A local CBI court on Thursday turned down a plea of sub-inspector Surinder Kumar, one of the accused in Rs 70 lakh economic offences wing (EOW) graft case, regarding the release of his mobile phone and identity card.

The accused, on December 24, 2015, had submitted an application that during personal search, the investigating officer concerned had taken away these articles as ‘Jama-talashi’, so they should be released.

In its reply, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) averred that the identity card of the accused was a government property and could only be returned to the competent authority of the accused-applicant. It was also contended that the mobile phones of the accused and co-accused were forwarded to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi, for analysis.

The CBI added that the investigation in this case was kept open to establish the role of other private persons involved in the conspiracy.

“The supplementary chargesheet, if required, will be filed on the basis of the mobile analysis report of the accused persons. These mobile phones are duly sealed and might be used as case properties during the filing of the supplementary chargesheet,” read the CBI reply, adding that they should not be released.

Meanwhile, the defence counsel had averred that there was no record of any kind of conversation between Surinder Kumar, co-accused and complainant Guneet Kaur, or any other private persons named in the transcription produced by the CBI.

Moreover, the CFSL report about the recorded conversation between other accused persons and complainant Guneet Kaur has already been received by the CBI and produced in the court. As such, Surinder Kumar’s mobile phone was not required for any purpose, said the defence counsel.

However, in its order, the court stated, “At this stage, the prosecution needs the mobile phone of the accused, so the contention raised by the defence counsel is not sustainable.”

Case History

On August 12, complainant Guneet had filed a complaint with the CBI in which she had alleged that Deepa Duggal, a resident of Sector 9, in December last year had got a case of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy registered against her father Gurkirpal Singh Chawla, Jagjit Kaur Chawla and brother Hamrit Singh Chawla with the EOW wing of the UT police.

The case was being investigated by SI Surinder Kumar under the supervision of DSP EOW wing RC Meena.

Aman Grover is the sonin-law of Deepa and Sanjay is a friend of Aman, who had demanded `75 lakh bribe on behalf of deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Meena and SI Surinder through Dahuja for not arresting her parents and brother, said the complainant. Aman had assured her of help in the case through Dhauja, if the bribe money was paid to Dahuja for further delivery to DSP Meena and Surinder.