Sunil Chadha
Shimla: In a significant development in the case of Chief Engineer Vimal Negi’s death, “sent on leave” IPS Sanjeev Gandhi has filed a revised letter patent appeal (LPA) in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, correcting earlier procedural errors.
The fresh appeal, submitted late Monday evening, now bears Sanjeev Gandhi’s personal name instead of his official designation and addresses key legal objections raised by the high court registry.
In the revised plea, Sanjeev Gandhi, who was sent on leave by the Himachal government amid a controversy over indiscipline, has raised three primary concerns:
- Lack of hearing given to SIT: Gandhi argues that the special investigation team (SIT) led by him in the Vimal Negi death case was not given a fair opportunity to respond before the case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He points out that the affidavit submitted by the Director General of Police on behalf of the SIT was disregarded without a proper hearing. He contends that the single judge who ordered the CBI probe ignored this lapse in procedural fairness.
- Demand for independent probe under HC oversight: The appeal demands that the investigation into Vimal Negi’s death be conducted by an independent agency or a reconstituted SIT, monitored directly by the High Court. Gandhi maintains that such an approach is essential for ensuring impartiality and restoring public confidence.
- Allegation of targeted action by central agency: Gandhi has expressed apprehension that the central agency may be acting with prejudice against him. He cited previous incidents, including an attempt to implicate him in the 2023 Shimla restaurant blast — later proven to be a result of a gas leak — as an example of how events have been misrepresented to project malice. He also referred to ongoing probes linked to alleged MLA horse-trading, suggesting a pattern of selective scrutiny.
Gandhi had initially filed the LPA on May 30 to challenge the single-judge order transferring the investigation to the CBI. However, the court registry had flagged several issues, including the listing of the appellant as “Superintendent of Police” rather than by name. These errors have now been rectified in the fresh filing. The revised appeal could be listed before a double bench within the next couple of days.
