E-Paper
Pistol snatched from judge’s PSO: HC orders probe by Haryana IPS officer
According to reports, the ASI was accompanying the judge who had come to pay obeisance at the shrine. Suddenly, a man snatched the officer’s pistol and shot himself dead. He was later identified as Hariprasad, a resident of Mahalingapura, Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, who, police stated, was mentally unstable.
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has ordered that a Haryana IPS officer be entrusted with the probe into the September 22 incident, wherein a man snatched the service pistol of a judge’s personal security officer (PSO) at the Golden Temple and shot himself dead.
The probe will be conducted by Haryana IPS officer, Manisha Chaudhary.
The bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal also entrusted probes into two more FIRs, one triggered by this incident and the second in which the same judge’s convoy was obstructed by protesters, to Chaudhary. Her name, along with that of two other officers, had been put forth by the Haryana government after an order in this regard on September 27.
The court was hearing a sou motu plea initiated on September 24, after the incident came to light. According to reports, the ASI was accompanying the judge who had come to pay obeisance at the shrine. Suddenly, a man snatched the officer’s pistol and shot himself dead. He was later identified as Hariprasad, a resident of Mahalingapura, Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, who, police stated, was mentally unstable.
Court expunges remarks against Punjab police
The bench also ordered removal of observations against the Punjab police, wherein it had recorded on September 27, that “There is definitely a lapse of security..” and had sought the names of officers from Haryana and Chandigarh to whom probe can be entrusted.
The observations were removed at the request of Punjab advocate general, Gurminder Singh, who stated that the observations cast an adverse shadow on reputation of the state police force.
The court, while ordering removal of certain portions, said that the observations were made looking at emergent and grave situation, where the court felt, “If the PSO deputed with a learned Judge cannot take care of his firearm, secured to his person, then grave doubts arise as to the alertness and vigilance exercised by the said police personnel”.
“This court may have gone a little overboard by concluding at this early stage that there is definitely a lapse of security on part of the Punjab Police, but this court had no intention to cast any aspersions on the reputation or integrity of police personnel of the State of Punjab,” the bench clarified, adding that directions to change the security of the judge to “a neutral police force” was issued “wholly and solely keeping in mind the threat perception perceived by the judge and also the bench hearing the case”.
Meanwhile, the Chandigarh police told the court that the judge has been provided with an escort vehicle with a driver and one/two armed personnel from Chandigarh police, in place of the earlier PSO, who is from Punjab police. However, the PSO in question has been retained on request made by the said judge. The court has adjourned the matter for October 15 and sought probe report from the Haryana IPS officer by then.
