Vigilance Case: Court verdict on the Bail of Former DGP Sumedh Saini

Vigilance Case: Court verdict on the Bail of Former DGP Sumedh Saini

Nabaz-e-Punjab, Mohali, August 7, 2021:
Mohali court has rejected the bail plea of former Punjab DGP, Sumedh Singh Saini, in a fresh case registered against him by the Vigilance Bureau Punjab.On Thursday, Saini had filed the bail plea through his counsels HS Dhanoya and APS Deol in the court of Parminder Singh Grewal, Additional Session Judge.
It is to be noted that Saini among 7 persons was booked by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau under Sections 109, 120-B of the IPC and 13(1)(B) and 13 (2) of the PC Act recently. Saini is accused of helping Punjab X En Nimratdeep Singh in amassing assets much beyond his known sources of income. The Vigilance team had also raided Saini’s residence in Sector 20 here to arrest him and it continued searching his house for several hours.
During the case hearing, it was submitted by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau through Sartej Singh Narula, Special Public Prosecutor that Saini was found to have transferred crores of Rupees to the account of Nimratdeep’s father, from where money was transferred to the joint account held by Nimratdeep. Then Rs 75 lakh was retransferred by Nimratdeep to Saini in September 2020. These transactions were inexplicable even in the face of some documents produced by the accused which seemed to have been fabricated as a cover up, said Narula in the court.
Saini has been absconding since Friday when the Vigilance team raided his house in Sector 20, Chandigarh to secure his custody. His Z plus security of 6 CRPF and 42 other police personnel were found clueless about his whereabouts, making the huge expenditure being forced upon the state exchequer suspect.
APS Deol senior advocate Counsel for the accused Saini argued that the case was the outcome of political vendetta and in line with the three earlier cases registered against Saini. He further asserted that it was a case of his having first taken house no 3048, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh in rent and then having entered into an agreement to purchase the same with owner.
Rejecting the plea raised on behalf of the Saini, Judge Grewal held that the case was registered after a detailed inquiry conducted by the VB, on the complaint of JD vigilance and was based on certain documents.
The court further observed that Saini had asserted in his petition that he was not known to the Nimratdeep and his father and had met them on only two occasions, while signing the rent agreement and the agreement to sell. But Saini’s own accounts show that he had already paid 45 lakhs to Nimratdeep and his father much prior to signing the rent deed. Then money in crores was paid before signing the agreement to sell and even thereafter without any receipt. Receipt of Rs 75 lakhs later also revealed that something was in descript.
Judge Grewal further noticed non deduction of TDS on payments made by Saini lent credence to the case of the vigilance that the documents had been framed as a cover up.
Agreeing with the plea of the VB that custodial interrogation of Saini was necessary in this case, his anticipatory bail was denied by the court. It is now to be seen whether Saini submits to the process of law, or continues to be an absconder.