Former CVC Sharad Kumar comes to rescue of CBI in its case against former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini

New Delhi: This is a case that has been going on for 28 years and it is yet to reach a closure – both literally and figuratively.

This is a case wherein even the Chief Investigation Officer (CIO) has turned hostile.

This is a case where the trial was shifted to Delhi on the orders of the Supreme Court as it was alleged that the accused persons were influential and could adversely affect the trial in Ambala.

This is a case in which three Ludhiana residents – Vinod Kumar, his driver Mukhtiar Singh and brother-in-law Ashok Kumar disappeared in 1994 and since then have neither been seen alive nor were their dead bodies found.

This is a case where former Punjab Director General of Police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini is accused of causing the disappearance of the three Ludhiana residents along with a few other Punjab police officials.

If these rarities were not enough, sample this too.

In a unique move, the CBI has asked former Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and former National Investigation Agency (NIA) chief Sharad Kumar to become a witness in the trial to save it from collapsing.

Sharad Kumar had served as a Superintendent of Police in the CBI in 1994 when the case was first entrusted to the agency on the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Following the registration of the case, the CBI submitted a detailed inquiry report to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in August 1995 under the signature of Sharad Kumar who by then had been promoted as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the agency.

“Immediately after the IO DP Singh turned hostile in 2019, a CBI team sought a meeting with Sharad Kumar, who was then acting CVC, with a request to depose in the case,’’ said a source privy to the deliberations between Kumar and the CBI team.

Sharad Kumar agreed to depose in the case but due to the pandemic, physical hearings in trial courts were not allowed. Therefore, his deposition remained pending.

Now, Sharad Kumar has appeared before the court twice in the case. His examination-in-chief is over and now lawyers of the accused persons are cross-examining him.

By bringing Sharad Kumar as a witness in the case, the CBI hopes to recover from the setback it suffered due to the IO turning hostile. Kumar was his supervisory officer and therefore also conversant with the facts of the case.

“Sharad Kumar in his deposition has confirmed that an inquiry report was submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court under his signature and also clarified that the report was a collaborative effort of the CBI as a probe agency, vetted by officials senior to him as well and they included even the then director of the agency. Now the lawyers of accused persons are cross-examining him,” added the source.

Lawyers and former CBI officials concur with the strategy adopted by the CBI.

“If the officer who conducted the investigation turns hostile, it is a big loss for any investigation agency,” said lawyer Karan Singh, who has seen and conducted hundreds of trials.

NR Wasan, who served in the CBI for 18 years and retired as Director General of Bureau of Police Research and Development adds, “During my years in CBI, I never came across a case wherein the IO was declared hostile. It could obviously be damaging for the prosecuting agency.”

A retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer who supervised the probe in the case during his years in the CBI, said, “If a gap is created due to an advertent and inadvertent hostility of the IO, it can be filled by deposition of an official senior to him. Then the adverse effect on the trial can be minimised.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

When contacted, Kumar said, “Matter is subjudice. I would not like to comment at this juncture."

Key developments in the case

-On directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the CBI registers a case on April 18, 1994, to investigate the disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Mukhtiar Singh and Ashok Kumar.

-Probe entrusted to then CBI Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) DP Singh under the close supervision of Sharad Kumar, then SP in CBI.

-Following its probe, the CBI alleged that Sumedh Singh Saini, then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (later retired as Director-General, Housing), SS Sandhu, then SP, Ludhiana (now retired), Inspector Paramjit Singh (later Additional SP) and Inspector Balbir Tewari (now retired) were responsible for the disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh.

-The agency submits a detailed report to the Punjab and Haryana high court on August 24, 1995, under the signature of Sharad Kumar.

-The agency files its chargesheet on July 1, 2000, against Saini, Sandhu, Singh and Tewari.

-Case committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on August 13, 2001.

-On October 7, 2003, Amar Kaur (since no more), mother of Vinod Kumar, moved Supreme Court and sought transfer of the case from Ambala to Delhi on the grounds that the accused persons were influential and could adversely affect the trial.

-On October 15, 2004, the top court transfers the trial to Delhi

-Charges were formally framed against all the accused on December 6, 2006, under section 120 B (criminal conspiracy) read with sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 364 (kidnapping in order to murder) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

-On July 18, 2019, the IO of the case, DySP DP Singh (retired from CBI) turns up for his deposition in the case and refuses to even identify his own signatures on a statement of a key witness. He identifies signatures only after being warned by the judge.

The accused moved the Delhi HC against framing of charges and according to agency documents, their petitions are still pending for disposal.

What does the CBI chargesheet state?

The CBI in its chargesheet alleged that Sumedh Singh Saini had “strained relations” with his close relatives – Narender Saini and Meenakshi Saini, proprietors of M/S Saini Motors in Ludhiana which dealt in sale of Maruti vehicles. The agency said as a result of alleged “animosity”, several cases were registered against proprietors/partners of Saini Motors when Sumedh Singh Saini was Senior Superintendent of Police in Ludhiana.

In February 1994, Ludhiana police had registered an FIR against Saini Motors alleging that it was selling cars at a premium.

The CBI claimed that the firms owned by Rattan Singh Walia and his wife Amar Kaur (parents of Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar) had deposited several lakhs rupees with Saini Motors in the course of business transaction. This amount was paid by raising a loan from the Allahabad bank.

When the police got to know about the financial dealings between the Walias and Saini Motors, a Ludhiana police team headed by Inspector Paramjit Singh picked up Ashish Kumar from his house on February 24, 1994. The agency alleged that Ashish Kumar was kept in illegal confinement by the city police until he was bailed out by the court.

Ashish’s brother Vinod Kumar also filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High court, alleging that he was being harassed by the Ludhiana police since his parents had given around Rs 48 lakh to the Saini Motors and also Sumedh Singh Saini wanted him to help the police to implicate Saini Motors in a criminal case. But after his refusal to do so, he was threatened with illegal detention and liquidation. The High Court issued notice to Sumedh Singh Saini and asked him to present in court in court on March 9, 1994.

In the meanwhile Rattan Singh Walia, father of Vinod and Ashish, passed away and Vinod Kumar attended the last rites of his father on March 6, 1994, under a police escort provided by the Chandigarh police on the orders of the High Court.

But, the agency said in the chargesheet that on March 7 and 8, several relatives of Vinod Kumar were picked up by the Ludhiana police including his mother Amar Kaur. Vinod Kumar moved to the High Court again on March 8 and disclosed all these details to the judges. The court ordered the release of all the relatives of Vinod Kumar and issued a contempt of court notice to Sumedh Singh Saini and Inspector Paramjit Singh. The court issued a bailable warrant against Sumedh Singh Saini seeking his presence in court on March 15 as he didn’t appear on March 9.

In the meanwhile on March 10, the Ludhiana police registered another case against Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar on the basis of a letter from the chief manager of Allahabad Bank levelling allegations of fraud.

The agency said the next day, on March 11, Saini moved the HC claiming that Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar were habitual criminals and defrauded several lakh rupees. He sought the court’s permission to arrest them in order to recover the amount defrauded by them. The matter was fixed for March 12 but got adjourned and came up for a hearing on March 15.

On March 15, Saini and SS Sandhu, the SP, Ludhiana and a few other police officials were present in the HC and also present were Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar and their brother Pramod Kumar. The court granted protection from arrest to Vinod and Ashish in the case registered on March 10 with a condition that they will join the probe as and when required by the city police.

Outlining the key developments of the case, the CBI said in the chargesheet that the order was pronounced at 5 pm by the High Court. Thereafter the Ludhiana police issued summons to Vinod Kumar to join the investigation on March 17. Vinod Kumar was planning to go to Ludhiana to get the ashes of his father to be taken to Haridwar for immersion. He requested the police officials not to call him for questioning on March 17. Thereafter he went to Ludhiana in his Maruti car and SP SS Sandhu was with him. The vehicle was driven by Mukhtiar Singh. Ashish Kumar had informed Vinod’s brother-in-law Ashok Kumar to wait for Vinod at the cremation ground.

But there was no information on the whereabouts of Vinod or his driver. Ashok Kumar went to Vinod Kumar’s house in the evening on the same day on a scooter and there were police personnel present outside the house. Ashok Kumar tried to slip away but he was chased by two police vehicles and thereafter his whereabouts are not known too.

Ashish Kumar moved the High Court again seeking production of his relatives before the court. But the Punjab government informed the High Court that SP SS Sandhu had gone with Vinod Kumar to the Kotwali police station in Ludhiana but Vinod Kumar left the police station after informing the Station House Officer that he could come on March 17. Thereafter, Sandhu too left.

The Punjab government had asked the Ludhiana police to trace the trio but it could not. Thereafter, the High Court transferred the matter to the CBI.

The CBI alleged that under a criminal conspiracy, the accused persons abducted Vinod Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh from Chandigarh on March 15 and Ashok Kumar from Ludhiana on the same day later. Since then, they are untraced.

Key people in the case

Amar Kaur

Amar Kaur, the mother of Vinod Kumar died in 2017 at the age of 103. She was paralysed but used a wheelchair to attend hearings of the case in Delhi. Kaur was brought in an ambulance to the court in 2008 to depose. Kaur had sent an appeal to the Delhi High Court in 2011 to allow a day-to-day hearing in the case so that she could get justice during her lifetime. But 5 years after her death, the case is yet to be concluded.

Hostile witnesses

The CIO DP Singh wasn’t the first witness to turn hostile in the case. The wife of Mukhtiar Singh, one of the victims, too has been declared hostile. Also, the wife of Narender Saini of Saini Motors turned hostile. Narender Saini has passed away. Pramod Kumar, the brother of Ashish Kumar and Vinod Kumar is also no more. The agency has dropped a few witnesses too.