1984 anti-Sikh riots: Probe case against Jagdish Tytler, court tells CBI


Dhillon Sa'aB™
Staff member
In a setback to Congress leader Jagdish Tytler, a trial court on Friday rejected CBI's closure in an anti-Sikh riots case giving clean chit to Tytler.

Additional chief metropolitan magistrate Laler refused to accept CBI's closure report and ordered CBI to carry out further investigation in the matter.

This was CBI's third closure report in the case and was filed in the court on December 24, 2014.
The other two closure reports, in which too it had given a clean chit to Tytler, were also rejected by the court. The case pertains to riots at Gurudwara Pulbangash in north Delhi where three people were killed on November 1, 1984.

Challenging CBI's closure report, the complainant in the case Lakhvinder Kaur — whose husband Badal Singh was killed in the riots—had filed a protest petition. On October 30, the court had reserved its order after hearing arguments of the CBI prosecutor and Kaur's counsel Phoolka on the issue of whether to accept the closure report.

On November 10, Kaur had also filed another plea seeking the court's permission and some time to enable her to provide fresh information regarding witnesses quoted in the CBI's final report. On November 17, CBI filed a response to Kaur's plea and said that it ready to re-examine the case against him if the complainant furnishes fresh evidence in the case. Kaur, in her plea, had sought deferment of the case to enable her to furnish reliable information relating to material witnesses — Resham Singh, Chanchal Singh, Alam Singh, Jasbir Singh, Santosh Singh and Narender Singh. Earlier, CBI had said that these witnesses were untraceable.

Responding to Kaur's plea, CBI had said, "It is respectfully submitted that if the applicant (complainant) provides (details of) the material witnesses in the interest of justice in the present matter, then the CBI is ready to take up further investigation (based) on the additional evidence. It is prayed that CBI may be granted time... to examine the material if so supplied by the complainant."

The CBI had also told the court that "it has no objection" if the matter is deferred in order to grant time to the applicant to "get concrete information and whereabouts of material witnesses". "The CBI is willing to examine the aforesaid witnesses... as they may be essential for a just decision in the case," the agency had said, in its reply.