HC pans Delhi Police again
10 Jan 2013 12:49 AM GMT
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed its displeasure over the status report filed by the Delhi Police to name police officials on duty on 16 December, when a paramedical girl was gangraped in a moving bus. The court asked that why only a junior police officer was suspended in the case and senior police officers not been made accountable.
The court had taken suo motu cognisance of the gang-rape and had pulled up the police asking as to how the offence remained undetected. Earlier, the court had criticised police for not giving the names of the policemen who were on patrol duty on the evening of 16 December.
‘Why only ACP, why not DCP, why not the Commissioner have been put to task?’ a bench headed by Chief Justice D Murugesan said while expressing its anguish over the non-disclosure of the names of policemen patrolling the areas where the girl was raped in a moving bus.
The court also warned the city police that it cannot be blamed for any consequential order.
‘We had directed you to give the names of the officials posted on relevant PCR vans and the areas concerned. Today also, we are not convinced (from the status report) because the names of the officials have not been given. You (police) don’t blame the court then. We will pronounce the order tomorrow,’ a bench, also comprising Justice V K Jain, said. The court said that sufficient opportunities have been given but the names of the cops have not been provided.
At the start of the hearing, police filed a status report in a sealed cover and the bench, after perusing it, expressed its anguish over not finding the names of the cops.
The court also said that since the chargesheet has been filed in the case, it cannot monitor it further.
‘We wanted a fair, speedy and high standard probe in the case. The chargesheet has been filed, we cannot monitor further. It is not in the interest of the case and the trial,’ the bench said.
The court also asked that how the bus with tinted glass and curtains was allowed to ply on Delhi roads and what actions have been taken. When the police counsel said that action has also been taken against an ACP (traffic), the court said, ‘Why are you taking action against the ACP and why not Joint Commissioner (Traffic)... do you want to say that the bus was plying in south Delhi only’?
The court had taken suo motu cognisance of the gang-rape and had pulled up the police asking as to how the offence remained undetected. Earlier, the court had criticised police for not giving the names of the policemen who were on patrol duty on the evening of 16 December.
‘Why only ACP, why not DCP, why not the Commissioner have been put to task?’ a bench headed by Chief Justice D Murugesan said while expressing its anguish over the non-disclosure of the names of policemen patrolling the areas where the girl was raped in a moving bus.
The court also warned the city police that it cannot be blamed for any consequential order.
‘We had directed you to give the names of the officials posted on relevant PCR vans and the areas concerned. Today also, we are not convinced (from the status report) because the names of the officials have not been given. You (police) don’t blame the court then. We will pronounce the order tomorrow,’ a bench, also comprising Justice V K Jain, said. The court said that sufficient opportunities have been given but the names of the cops have not been provided.
At the start of the hearing, police filed a status report in a sealed cover and the bench, after perusing it, expressed its anguish over not finding the names of the cops.
The court also said that since the chargesheet has been filed in the case, it cannot monitor it further.
‘We wanted a fair, speedy and high standard probe in the case. The chargesheet has been filed, we cannot monitor further. It is not in the interest of the case and the trial,’ the bench said.
The court also asked that how the bus with tinted glass and curtains was allowed to ply on Delhi roads and what actions have been taken. When the police counsel said that action has also been taken against an ACP (traffic), the court said, ‘Why are you taking action against the ACP and why not Joint Commissioner (Traffic)... do you want to say that the bus was plying in south Delhi only’?
Next Story
