deltin33 • 2025-10-10 04:05:32 • views 608
|
Chandigarh: Anguished over the non-registration of an FIR and arrest of those named in her husband’s suicide note, Haryana cadre senior bureaucrat Amneet P. Kumar in a letter to Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini, on Thursday, sought justice for her husband and senior Indian Police Service （IPS） officer Y. Puran Kumar, who allegedly shot himself dead this week. The letter, marked urgent and confidential, expressed anguish over what she described as a “grave injustice” and “complete administrative inaction” even after more than 48 hours of her husband’s death. Inspector General of Police （IGP） Kumar, an IPS officer from the 2001 batch, was found dead with a gunshot wound at his residence in Chandigarh on Tuesday. At a meeting, the IPS officer’s widow told the Chief Minister that the family would not allow the post-mortem or perform last rites of Kumar until an FIR is filed against those named in the suicide note and the related complaint. The body has been kept at the mortuary of Government Medical Superspecialty Hospital in Sector-16 here and officials said the autopsy would be conducted by a board of doctors once the family gives procedural clearances. She accused the Chandigarh Police of failing to register an FIR despite the presence of a detailed nine-page suicide note that, according to her, clearly names senior Haryana officials responsible for the officer’s “harassment, humiliation and targeted mental torture”. Her letter expressed anguish over the community-wide sense of injustice with the death of a decorated officer and recipient of the President’s medal for meritorious service. She described his death as a blow to thousands who saw the IPS officer as an emblem of empowerment and justice. In a complaint to the Chandigarh Police on Wednesday, Amneet accused the state Director General of Police Shatrujeet Singh Kapur and Rohtak Superintendent of Police Narendra Bijarnia of abetment of suicide. She sought the registration of an FIR against both officers under Section 108 （abetment of suicide） and relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes （Prevention of Atrocities） Act, 1989. In her letter, she demanded that the suicide note, titled Final Note, should be treated as a dying declaration under law, demanding immediate legal action. She said that the document and her accompanying written complaint disclose cognisable offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes （Prevention of Atrocities） Act. “Despite the existence of a clear and detailed suicide note and a formal complaint, no FIR has been registered till date. This note constitutes a dying declaration and must be treated as crucial evidence demanding immediate legal action,” she wrote. The IPS officer was reportedly perturbed over the inclusion of his name in a bribery case on the complaint of a liquor contractor without the permission of the state government. The Rohtak Police on Monday registered an FIR based on a complaint by the liquor contractor, who alleged that Kumar’s aide Sushil Kumar had sought a bribe of Rs 2.5 lakh in the officer’s name. On September 29, Kumar was transferred to the Police Training College in Sunaria in Rohtak. Previously, he was posted as the Inspector General of Police （Rohtak Range）. The contractor, in a complaint, had submitted the CCTV footage and audio recordings as evidence to substantiate his allegations. Sources said the IGP was purportedly upset about including his name in the FIR. On Tuesday, soon after the crime, a ‘will’ and a ‘final note’ were recovered from Kumar’s official residence. Police said Puran Kumar allegedly shot himself with his service revolver, and his body was found by his daughter in the basement. His death has left police and administrative circles in shock. Kumar had written a letter to Chief Minister Saini, questioning the promotions granted to IPS officers. He had alleged that these promotions were conducted illegally by overriding Union Home Ministry （MHA） guidelines based solely on the consent of the Finance Department. His central argument stemmed from the discrepancy in the application of promotional benefits. While some officers received their promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police with retrospective effect, January 1 of the promotion year, others, including Kumar, were given the promotion with “immediate effect” on the actual date of the order, leading to significant financial losses and unfair treatment. IANS |
|
