SHO arrested in Chandigarh house grab case sent to two-day police custody

To be questioned on why he obliged the property grabbers instead of taking action on the complaint of the victim’s tenant

A local court on Saturday sent Chandigarh Police inspector Rajdeep Singh, arrested for his involvement in the Sector-37 property grab case, to two-day police custody.

Inspector Rajdeep Singh is accused of inaction in the case when a complaint was filed in January 2019. (HT Photo)

Rajdeep is the fourth person to be arrested in the matter following a probe by the special investigation team (SIT).

Journalist Sanjeev Mahajan, realtor Manish Gupta and Satpal Dagar, brother of deputy superintendent of police Ram Gopal, who were arrested earlier, are currently in judicial custody.

The trio is among nine people facing charges of kidnapping and torturing Rahul Mehta, the only surviving heir of his family, in April 2017 to secure the general power of attorney of his 338-square-yard house and selling it to Manish’s brother for ₹2.9 crore in March 2019.

Constables statement did Rajdeep in

According to the FIR, lodged on the complaint of Mehta’s tenant Pradeep Ratan, the inspector, who was the then SHO of the Sector-39 police station, had failed to take action against Mahajan, bouncer Surjit Singh and Shekhar, who had forcibly occupied Mehta’s house.

During investigation, sources privy to it said, two constables exposed Rajdeep’s involvement in the property grab case.

In their statement before the SIT, the constables said the complaint lodged by Ratan in January 2019 was brushed aside as a dispute between landlord and tenant, even when the complaint was about house trespass and forcible occupation of a house.

Ratan had alleged that the property grabbers had also assaulted him and misbehaved with him. However, the SHO, who himself dealt with the matter, ignored this as well.

Rajdeep is accused of being part of the conspiracy, and being aware of the house grab and treatment meted out to Mehta by the accused.

The police will be questioning him about the circumstances under which he obliged the accused by not acting on the tenant’s complaint. They also want to question him about the whereabouts of the complaint as well as the mental health certificate of Mehta, which was allegedly removed by him.

Ratan had alleged in the FIR that Rajdeep removed the certificate, which was attached with his complaint, and kept it in his pocket.