Senior SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia has filed an application before the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging that the sole purpose of registering an FIR against him is to detain and torture him.
Majithia, who is facing an FIR registered by the Punjab Police in the NDPS case, is currently out on interim anticipatory bail. The High Court has granted him interim bail on the condition of cooperating in the investigation. The matter is now to be heard on January 24.
Majithia in his application submitted before the HC through his advocates Damanbir Singh Sobti and Arshdeep Singh Cheema issued an order dated December 27, 2021 by the then DGP Siddhartha Chattopadhyay exercising his special powers to promote a sub-inspector. Did. Permission has been sought to be kept on record. Princepreet Singh, out of turn, in the rank of Inspector.
“This is the son of Special Sub-Inspector Balraj Singh, PPS, AIG, Police, who is the chairman of the SIT constituted by Siddharth Chattopadhyay to probe the present case. The incitement by Siddharth Chattopadhyay to investigate Balraj Singh in the most unfair and partisan manner is thus enormous,” the application alleged.
“…the object of seeking custody of the petitioner is not to further any impartial investigation, but to humiliate and harass the petitioner in custody … to the degree of torture. …,” reads Majithia’s application .
The application further alleged that the Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi With a view to affect the process of law on December 23, 2021, the petitioner was held guilty of the bomb blasts in the Ludhiana District Court in a very irresponsible manner as the petitioner’s bail was being heard by the Sessions Court at Mohali.
With regard to submission in the court of state counsel that the petitioner required custodial interrogation as he had to face drug case accused Jagdish Bhola, Jagjit Chahal and Maninder Aulakh, Majithia mentioned in his application. That he (Bhola) had, at any time, no acquaintance or oral interaction with the petitioner, as per his version, and thus, there is no question of the petitioner having an encounter with the said person.
Majithia has said in the application that he appeared before the SIT on three occasions to join the investigation. According to the application, on January 12, he was interrogated orally for about two hours in a comfortable atmosphere, although the petitioner found some questions inappropriate, derogatory and objectionable, though he answered all the questions respectfully.
On January 16, he (Majithia) appeared in person, but there was no verbal interrogation, and on January 17, 2022, he appeared in person again, and found that the investigating agency was unnecessarily going in circles. It was expanding. category. The investigation beyond any reasonable limit and the investigation into the allegations in the FIR are barely addressing themselves.
The plea alleged that the pattern of questions clearly shows that the investigating agency is conducting investigation to find out some lapse or irregularity.