Last Updated:
Following protests from the gangster’s community members who alleged foul play in the incident, the case was handed over to the CBI by the Rajasthan government in December 2017.(Representative image)
Gangster Anandpal Singh was killed allegedly in an encounter at village Malasar in Churu on June 24, 2017 night
A CBI court on Wednesday rejected the central probe agency’s closure report in the alleged fake encounter of gangster Anandpal Singh in 2017 and directed that a case be filed on murder and other charges against the cops involved in the killing.
The court order came on a petition by Anandpal’s wife Raj Kanwar challenging the closure report of the CBI which had given a clean chit to the then Churu SP Rahul Barhat, DSP (Kuchaman City) Vidhya Prakash, Inspector Surya Veer Singh and others.
Gangster Anandpal Singh was killed allegedly in an encounter at village Malasar in Churu on June 24, 2017 night. The police had claimed that after cordoning off the house where he was hiding, he was asked to surrender but he began firing on police and was killed in the ensuing encounter.
Following protests from his community members who alleged foul play in the incident, the case was handed over to the CBI by the Rajasthan government in December 2017.
After its investigation, the CBI concluded that it was an encounter and submitted a closure report in the court in August 2019. Raj Kanwar and Anandpal’s brother Rupenderpal Singh, as an eyewitness, had challenged this report in the court in May 2023.
Kanwar’s counsel Bhanwar Singh said that after hearing arguments from both sides, the court observed that Anandpal had surrendered before he was killed.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Yuvraj Singh rejected the CBI closure report and directed that a criminal case be filed against the then SP Rahul Barhat, the then DSP Vidhya Prakash, the then Inspector Surya Veer Singh, head constables Kailash Chandra and Sohan Singh and constables Dharmpal and Dharmveer.
The case will be filed under IPC sections 147 and 148 (related to rioting), 302 (punishment for murder), 326, 325 and 324 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) read with section 149 (which holds individuals accountable for offences committed by a group).
Giving details of the case, the petitioners’ counsel Bhanwar Singh said that police had apprehended Rupenderpal and Devenderpal, who during interrogation had informed that Anandpal was hiding in a house in Malasar.
“When the police reached the house on June 24, Anandpal was present on the roof of the house. Police then asked Rupender to convince Anandpal to surrender, assuring that they would not harm him”, said the counsel.
“Following this, Rupender led the police team including SP Barhat and other officials to the roof through the steps. Anandpal was convinced and he surrendered but the police beat him up and shot him from a close range,” the counsel alleged.
He argued in the court that the cartridges were found on the roof whereas the police claimed that they shot him from the ground and did not go to the roof.
The presence of Vidhya Prakash on the spot has also not been mentioned in CBI’s report though the used cartridge from his pistol had been found on the roof.
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed – PTI)