A court in Muzaffarnagar has directed the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (DGP) and the chief secretary to initiate an inquiry into the actions of the Saharanpur police in a case where a licenced firearm went missing from custody and was later found in the possession of a dreaded gangster’s son, eight years ago.
The bench, presided by Judge Shakti Singh, expressed concern over the “recklessness, irresponsibility, irregularities, and inaction” displayed by the police during the course of the investigation over the past several years.
The case dates back to 2015 when Lalit Kumar, hailing from Dehra village of Saharanpur, won a court case pertaining to a property dispute. He then got the district magistrate’s permission to get his seized licenced revolver released from the ‘malkhana’ of Deoband police station.
However, he found that his weapon had gone missing.
Though an FIR was filed against the policemen assigned with the weapon’s custody, police closed the case.
Later, the same weapon was seized by police from Vivek Singh, son of jailed don Sushil Mooch in Ratanpuri region of Muzaffarnagar, during a raid in January this year, and the case was revived.
Kumar then filed a revision petition in a lower session court in Muzaffarnagar seeking custody of his weapon. He requested the court to return it to him, asserting his rightful ownership.
However, the court denied his request, citing that the weapon was now considered evidence in an Arms Act case filed against Vivek Singh on January 3 this year, for its illegal possession.
“Later, the case was brought before the upper session court in May. After a month-long hearing, it set aside the lower court’s decision and directed a fresh examination of the matter. Besides, the court also questioned why Vivek Singh had only been charged under the Arms Act (illegal possession of a weapon) and not under IPC section 380 (theft from a dwelling house)”, said Parminder Singh, assistant district government counsel.
The upper session court also criticised the lower court’s previous order dated March 3 this year that refused to grant respite to the petitioner. The court said, “It seems no judicial brain was applied in the previous order.”
20230611-092801
