Police station turned into studio for Lawrence Bishnoi TV interview: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Police officers in Punjab provided a studio-like facility to gangster Lawrence Bishnoi to facilitate his interview with a news channel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said [Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Others].

A Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji made the remark while hearing a suo motu matter related to inmates' use of mobile phones within jail premises.

“The police officers allowed the criminal to use electronic device and provided a studio like facility to conduct the interview which tends to glorify crime with the potential to facilitate other crimes including extortion by the criminal and his associates. Involvement of the police officers may suggest receipt of illegal gratification from the criminal or his associates and constitute offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the case requires further investigation,” the Court said. 

The Bench made the remarks while questioning a Special Investigation Team (SIT)'s decision to file a cancellation report in a case related to the interview given by Bishnoi.

Bishnoi is a suspect in the murder of Punjabi singer Shubdeep Singh Sidhu alias Sidhu Moosewala. His interview was telecast by a news channel in March 2023. In the interview with ABP News, he said he knew about the murder plot.

The Court said that the interview had taken place within the premises of CIA Staff Kharar, in the presence of senior officers of the Punjab Police.

“The office of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station was used as a studio to conduct the interview. The official Wi-Fi at the premises of the CIA staff had been provided for conducting the interview which is a pointer towards the criminal conspiracy. The report indicates that roznamcha was also forged and fabricated. The matter calls for further investigation as to for what consideration this was done and the various aspects towards offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act besides other offences need to be examined,” it said. 

Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Prabodh Kumar told the Court that the SIT did not have the mandate to look into other offences including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act 

However, the Court did not agree with this, and ordered a further probe into the matter.

“We direct that a new SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar and also comprising of Mr. Nageshwar Rao, ADGP, Provisioning and Mr.Nilabh Kishore, ADGP, STF to carry out further investigation towards criminal conspiracy, abetment, forgery, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, Information Technology Act and also under any other offence. The SIT shall file a status report within a period of 6 weeks."

The Court was earlier told that seven Punjab police officers including two gazetted officers have been placed under suspension, and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the 8 officers. 

It was also submitted that Inspector Shiv Kumar, then officer-in-charge of the CIA Kharar police station, who had been given extension in services, has been terminated.

Observing that it had specifically directed that action should be taken against the senior officers who had facilitated the interview and the lower level officers should not be made scapegoats, the Court said,

“No action appears to have been taken against the senior officers of the District. By order dated 24.09.2024, we had also directed the State to inform us by filing an affidavit of the competent authority as to why the interviewee had been kept in the premises of CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time, and whether the repeated remands to keep the interviewee there was a deliberate attempt to keep him at the same station for extraneous reasons or whether he was generally required for investigation. Explanation was also sought for as to why Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge CIA was given extension and posted there.”

Since the official response did not answer the queries, the Court asked the Director General of Police (DGP) to file an affidavit in this regard.

It also asked the DGP to explain his statement in an earlier press conference that the interview had not taken place in any jail in Punjab.

"The fact that the interview had been conducted within the premises of CIA staff Kharar, District SAS Nagar makes it even worse as it appears to have been conducted in connivance with the police officers."

Meanwhile, the Court also ordered that if the interview has resurfaced on the internet, then it should be immediately removed.

Advocate Tanu Bedi is Amicus Curiae in the case and was assisted by Advocate Sumeet.

Additional Solicitor General Satyapal Jain and Senior Government Counsel Arun Gosain represented the Union of India.

Advocate General Gurminder Singh with Senior Deputy Advocate General HS Sullar and Additional Advocate General ADS Sukhija represented the State of Punjab.

Deputy Advocate General Anant Kataria represented the State of Haryana.

Public Prosecutor Manish Bansal and Additional Public Prosecutor Rajiv Vij represented the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

[Read Order]