Chandigarh: PCA indicts 4 cops for activist’s false arrest, custodial torture
The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), Chandigarh, has recommended disciplinary action, criminal prosecution against the four cops for grave misconduct and criminal behaviour
Charging them with serious misconduct by illegally arresting and torturing a local activist in 2018, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), Chandigarh, has directed disciplinary action and criminal prosecution against four police personnel, including an inspector and sub-inspector.
The final order, passed on May 8, 2025, affirms PCA’s earlier tentative findings, dated February 24, 2020, which held the four cops accountable for misuse of authority, falsely implicating the activist and subjecting him to inhuman treatment in custody.
The four cops facing legal action include inspector Ranjit Singh, sub-inspector Vidya Nand, assistant sub-inspector Raj Singh and constable Rajesh Kumar.
The complainant, Vineet Verma had alleged that on July 28, 2018, he and an acquaintance named Gurbhajan Singh, alias Guti, were illegally detained and physically assaulted at the Manimajra police station.
According to Verma’s affidavit, he had visited the station to support his earlier complaint against hookah bars operating illegally in Chandigarh and Panchkula.
But inspector Ranjit Singh subjected him to filthy language, ordered the seizure of his and Guti’s mobile phones, and had them confined in the munshi’s room.
Verma further alleged that he was dragged to the police station’s patio and brutally beaten up with slaps, punches and a baton, allegedly in the presence of his brother and others.
He was also allegedly subjected to sexual abuse while in custody, including insertion of a bamboo stick in his private parts by police personnel.
Verma claimed that this torture was retaliatory due to his previous vigilance complaint against ASI Narinder of Manimajra police station and his public opposition to the BJP.
He had filed complaints against hookah bars operating illegally in Panchkula and Chandigarh, allegedly with the backing of ASI Narinder.
A woman named Meenakshi was also allegedly coerced into filing a false complaint against him, citing an altercation on Old Ropar Road, on the basis of which a daily diary report was registered and he was placed under preventive arrest under Sections 107 and 151 of the CrPC.
PCA picks holes in police claims
The PCA examined the case over multiple hearings and found serious discrepancies in the police version of events.
The alleged altercation between complainant Vineet Verma and Meenakshi did not take place at Old Ropar Road, as claimed by police.
While the police record shows that a police officer met Meenakshi at the spot and started his inquiry, Meenakshi herself, in a sworn statement before PCA, said she never met any police officer on the way to the police station.
Phone records and sworn statements also proved Meenakshi was not present at the scene during the claimed time and was instead in Panchkula. Therefore, she could not have made the complaint at Old Ropar Road.
The findings clearly establish that Verma was arrested at the Manimajra police station and thereafter a complaint was obtained from Meenakshi.
DDRs 84, 90 and 91, all dated July 28, 2018, were found to have been fabricated after Verma was already in police custody.
While the PCA had earlier dismissed allegations of verbal abuse and physical beating as unproven due to lack of corroboration, it confirmed that Verma was indeed falsely arrested and that evidence was manipulated to justify the detention.
PCA rejects DGP’s justification
In response to the PCA’s 2020 order, the director general of police (DGP), Chandigarh, had submitted a report defending the actions of the police personnel, citing Verma’s apology before the SDM (the decisive authority in preventive arrest cases) and lack of formal complaints to the jail authorities regarding his injuries.
The PCA, however, dismissed these justifications, observing that the DGP failed to counter the core findings of the authority and instead relied on superficial arguments already addressed.
“The apology before SDM by the complainant could be out of compulsion to get rid of proceedings under Section 107/151 CrPC,” the order noted.
Reaffirming its earlier conclusions, the PCA ruled that inspector Ranjit Singh, SI Vidya Nand, ASI Raj Singh and constable Rajesh Kumar had engaged in grave misconduct and criminal behaviour, calling for strict disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
Police watchdog keeping eye on misconduct by cops
The PCA serves as an independent body to address complaints and allegations of serious misconduct, abuse of power, excesses and corruption against police personnel, ensuring justice for aggrieved citizens.
Serious misconduct includes any act of a police officer that leads to or amounts to death in police custody, grievous hurt, rape or attempt to commit rape, arrest or detention without due process of law, extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority
After investigating the allegations, the authority communicates its findings to the police officer heading the police force with direction to register an FIR and/or initiate departmental action against the delinquent police official based on such findings.
The recommendations of PCA are binding unless the police administration disagrees with the authority’s findings, with reasons in writing.
How to file a complaint
Complaints to PCA may be submitted personally/by post (3 copies, along with enclosures, if any, supported with affidavit) at the PCA office at UT Secretariat, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. A complaint in writing may also be dropped into the complaint box fixed on the wall of the PCA office or through email address: papcahd@chd.nic.inrh.
