Bribery case falls flat as HC raises questions over CBI investigation
The acquittal of UT sub-inspector Sukhdeep Singh and head constable Iqbal Singh in a case of accepting Rs15,000 bribe has raised several questions over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, the high court has observed.punjab Updated: Jan 21, 2016 17:52 IST
The acquittal of UT sub-inspector Sukhdeep Singh and head constable Iqbal Singh in a case of accepting Rs 15,000 bribe has raised several questions over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, the high court has observed.
Sources say there were several loopholes in the investigation. Moreover, complainant Rajiv Puri, owner of Mudra Associates, Sector 34, was also booked by the CBI in 2004 for forging documents to issue visa on fake documents.
The Punjab and Haryana high court judgment also clearly stated the criminal antecedents of the complainant were suspicious and there was every possibility that the case might be fabricated. Even if the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe, it was “highly unsafe” to rely upon the complainant’s testimony, as CBI was already probing a case against him, stated the court.
The close circuit television (CCTV) footage that could have established the presences of the SI and head constable at the Sector 34 police station was also not procured.
The court stated that in connivance with Dinesh Kumar, a CBI inspector, the case was foisted upon Sukhdeep Singh. During the search, the passport of one Rattan Bhushan, the complainant’s friend, was removed by Puri and later handed over to Rattan, who later fled abroad. It was also stated that the motive of the complaint against the cops was also to stop the probe against his travel agency.
However, since Puri had links with some CBI officials, no challan was produced against him. Dinesh Kumar had admitted that he contacted Puri from May 7 to May 18, 2007, while Puri had gone on record saying he had lodged the complaint at the CBI office on May 18.
The court also stated the SI was already investigating a case under the Immigration Act against Rattan, and if at all, the accused was avaricious, he would have demanded the bribe in connection with that case too. Also, there was no need for Rattan to flee abroad, maintained the court.
It was also stated the very foundation of the allegations that Sukhdeep, through accused Iqbal, demanded the bribe in a case that was not marked to him seemed suspicious. Therefore, the court set aside the conviction of the cops by the trial court.
SI HAD REQUESTED FOR LIE-DETECTION TEST
The court stated Sukhdeep Singh had requested the CBI director general to conduct the lie-detection, brain-mapping and narco-analysis tests to find out the truth. Had he been involved, he would not have the guts to throw a challenge to top officials of the department, stated the court.
The CBI had registered a case against SI Sukhdeep Singh and head constable Iqbal Singh for accepting Rs12,000 bribe from Sector 34-based travel agency owner Rajiv Puri on May 18, 2007. A CBI team had at first arrested Iqbal Singh, while Sukhdeep surrendered the next day. The CBI had stated that Iqbal and Sukhdeep were conducting an inquiry pertaining to the validity of Puri’s travel agency, and that they had demanded Rs 12,000 to prepare a report in their favour.