Sunil Chadha
Shimla: With Shimla SP Sanjeev Gandhi filing a revised petition in the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the single-judge bench’s order for a CBI probe into the suspicious death of Chief Engineer Vimal Negi, the late Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited officer’s family has posed five sharp questions, casting serious doubt on the conduct and motives behind the original investigation.
The new appeal by Sanjeev Gandhi, who was sent on leave by the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu government following his public altercation with then DGP Atul verma, comes in Gandhi’s personal capacity after procedural flaws in his earlier petition were flagged by the court registry.
But the timing of his renewed legal challenge has only intensified criticism from Vimal Negi’s family and rights groups, who allege deliberate obstruction and manipulation in the original police-led probe.
Five questions from the Negi family
At a press conference, Bhagat Singh, executive head of the Janjatiya Nyay Manch, listed five key questions that the family and supporters are demanding answers to:
- Why did the SIT fail to trace Vimal Negi’s movements between March 10 and 13? Despite having surveillance and investigation resources, there is no clear account of where Vimal was during the critical days leading up to his death.
- Why were Vimal Negi’s mobile phone and laptop never recovered? These vital digital devices could have offered crucial clues, but their disappearance remains unexplained.
- Why did Shimla SP Sanjeev Gandhi submit the medical report himself instead of a medical expert? The family and manch allege that the Shimla SP personally interpreted and presented the medical findings, raising questions about credibility and conflict of interest.
- What pressure is the SP under that compels him to oppose the CBI investigation personally? The family alleged that it suspected political or administrative pressure, given that Sanjeev Gandhi’s latest appeal was in his personal name rather than an official capacity.
- Why was the SIT’s initial report seen as an attempt to whitewash the case? From mishandling of evidence to vague timelines, the report has been criticized for dodging critical questions rather than addressing them.
SP’s legal appeal adds to the mystery
Sanjeev Gandhi’s revised the ‘letter patent appeal’ to challenge the high court’s earlier decision to transfer the case to the CBI. He raised concerns over the SIT not being given a proper hearing, calling for a court-monitored independent probe. He also alleged that he was being selectively targeted by central agencies.
The original plea, filed on May 30, had procedural issues — notably listing Gandhi as “Superintendent of Police” instead of using his personal name. These have now been corrected, and the plea could be listed before a division bench shortly.
