E-Paper
2016 Munak canal breach: CBI court frames charges against three
There are eight accused in the case, while five are absconding, charges have been framed against three
The special court of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has framed charges against three accused in the 2016 Munak canal damage case, wherein the canal in Sonepat district was damaged by pro-Jat quota protesters resulting in severe water crisis in Delhi for around two weeks.
Originating from Munak village in Karnal, the 22-km-long canal carries 700 cusecs of water to Delhi. The canal, which channels water from north Indian rivers, accounts for about 60% of Delhi’s water supply.
The Centre had to rush the army, which took control on February 22, 2016, after the canal was breached at several places by the protesters.
There are eight accused in the case, while five are absconding, charges have been framed against three - Mahaveer, Inder Singh and Neeraj.
The chargesheet mentions that on February 20 and 21, 2016, in Sonipat (Haryana), accused armed with deadly weapons viz lathis and sticks in prosecution of common object, indulged in disobedience to the orders duly promulgated by public servants.
It mentions how they did acts of omission and commission, indulged in mob violence, blocked roads, attacked and caused obstruction to public servants, and caused disruption in the law and order situation.
The chargesheet mentions that they “…assembled/reached at Mandora head, where a water regulation system is set up, captured and damaged it, breached the essential water supply of the canals viz Delhi branch and CLC branch and diverted into drain no 8 through the gates of regulation point and caused substantial loss to public property.”
On Tuesday, special judge, CBI, Jagdeep Singh framed charges under Sections 148 (rioting), 149(every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public servants), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of duty), 333, 341 (wrongful restraint), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), and 432 (mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage attended with damage) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.” Now the case is listed for prosecution evidence.
