Bargari sacrilege case: CBI seeks time to analyse SC order
The central probe agency sought time to examine the SC’s order upholding Punjab government ’s decision to take back all sacrilege cases from it
The CBI court on Tuesday deferred the hearing of the Bargari sacrilege case after the central probe agency sought time to examine the Supreme Court’s order upholding Punjab government ’s decision to take back all sacrilege cases from it. The case would now come up for hearing on March 6.
The Supreme Court on February 20 had dismissed the CBI’s plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order through which it had last year refused to interfere with the Punjab government’s decision to take back all sacrilege cases from the central probe agency.
The court was to hear arguments on the closure report, giving a clean chit to Dera Sacha Sauda followers — Mohinder Pal Bittu who was murdered in Nabha jail last year; Sukhjinder Singh, alias Sunny; and Shakti Singh — in the 2015 Bargari sacrilege cases.
On July 4, 2019, the CBI filed a closure report in three 2015 cases of sacrilege — theft of a ‘bir’ of Guru Granth Sahib from a Burj Jawahar Singh Wala village on June 1; putting up of handwritten sacrilegious posters in Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala on September 25; and torn pages of ‘bir’ being found at Bargari on October 12. The previous SAD-BJP government had handed over the cases to the CBI in November 2015.
The CBI submitted before the court that it be granted 15 days to analyse the SC order. However, Punjab objected to the same saying that the investigations have already been delayed.
“Sea change of circumstances have taken place in view of the SC and HC orders,” submitted Sanjiv Batra, special public prosecutor. Punjab submitted that the consent to handing over the investigation has already been withdrawn, thus the investigations are now out of the CBI jurisdiction.
“I had appeared before the court thinking that the CBI would handover the case files to us after the SC order,” submitted SIT head Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, who appeared in person before the court.
The counsel of the complainant submitted before the court that they are suffering owing to the fight over investigations of the cases. “We want justice but we are suffering due to fight between agencies over who will investigate,” counsels for the complainants submitted.