Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, July 23
Rapping the Punjab Police for “substituting” documents during a drugs case probe, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the same can hardly be appreciated and reflected gravely on the credibility of the investigation. The assertion came as the High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) concerned to personally examine the matter. He has been asked to look into the difference in signatures of an SHO and a constable on different documents before doing the needful.
The admonition by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill came on a bunch of two petitions by Raj Vikram Singh and Rajat Gogoia seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered on August 28, 2021, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Sadar police station in Rajpura.
Among other things, it was argued by the petitioners’ counsel that that the manner in which the police claimed to have acted and travelled about 550 km from Rajpura to Uttar Pradesh before arresting three different accused from different places and also returning the same day had cast a serious doubt on the authenticity of “such tall claims”.
The credibility of the claims also stood shattered from the fact that the police indulged in substitution of documents alleged to have been prepared during investigation. “The disclosure statement allegedly made by Rajat Gogoia on August 31, 2021, wherein he stated that the drugs, left with him after selling to Gogoia, are lying concealed in his rented accommodation, did not make any sense,” the counsel added.
The document in the shape of a disclosure statement was annexed with the remand papers. The ambiguity was brought to the court’s notice. Subsequently, the police substituted the document while presenting the challan with “another disclosure statement”. The signatures of the SHO and another police official existing on the earlier disclosure statement and the “substituted disclosure statement” were absolutely different, the counsel added.
Justice Gill asserted the state in its reply had averred that an inquiry had been initiated against the delinquent police official. But it would not dilute the suspicion created due to substitution of the document, coupled with the fact that even the signatures were found to be entirely different.
Justice Gill added the prosecution claimed recovery of huge quantity of contraband after three persons, including the petitioners, were arrested from Uttar Pradesh. But the admissibility of evidence regarding the recoveries would be highly debatable as entry, whatsoever, was not recorded in any of the police stations. “Had the recoveries been reported to the police in Uttar Pradesh, some authenticity could have been attached to the said recoveries,” Justice Gill asserted, while allowing the bail pleas.
Signature anomaly
The SSP has been asked to look into the difference in signatures of an SHO and a constable on different documents before doing the needful.
Drugs Case: Punjab Police rapped for ‘substituting’ documents during inquiry
{$excerpt:n}
