1984 riots case: Court raps CBI not filing status report

A Delhi court on Tuesday told a senior CBI officer to be present before it on February 22 and explain why the investigative agency had failed to file its status report on further probe in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler.

A Delhi court on Tuesday told a senior CBI officer to be present before it on February 22 and explain why the investigative agency had failed to file its status report on further probe in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler.

Expressing his displeasure at the agency’s failure to follow his directions, additional chief metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) SPS Laler directed the CBI’s superintendent of police to appear before him on February 22.

The court had on December 4, 2015, directed the CBI to probe a 1984-anti Sikh riots case against Tytler, saying the statement of arms dealer Abhishek Verma disclosed an active role played by the Congress leader in extending “helping hand” to a witness against him.

It had said that as the CBI had filed closure reports in the case several times, it would now monitor the probe every two months so that no aspects of the matter was left uninvestigated.

During the hearing, the court asked the CBI prosecutor about the status report to which he said the investigative officer was not present.

Senior advocate H S Phoolka, representing the riot victims, urged the court to take a stern view to the non-compliance of its order.

The case related to riots at Gurudwara Pulbangash in north Delhi where three people were killed on November 1, 1984, a day after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi.

The court’s order had come on a protest petition filed by complainant Lakhvinder Kaur, whose husband Badal Singh was killed in the violence, challenging the CBI’s closure report exonerating Tytler.

The court had noted that Verma’s statement to CBI claiming that Tytler had sent the son of Surinder Singh Granthi, a key witness against him, to Canada cannot be a “sheer coincidence” and the agency should probe if the facts.