Former MLA Anant Singh was released from jail on Thursday morning after being honorably acquitted by the Patna High Court in two separate cases of recovery of AK 47, grenade, INSAS rifle and several cartridges. The most important case among these two cases was the recovery of AK 47, its 26 bullets and two hand grenades from Anant Singh’s ancestral house in Ladma, Barh, after which it was being said that Anant’s story has come to an end and now he will remain in jail for the rest of his life. The famous IPS Lipi Singh, who was ASP in Barh at that time, raided Anant’s ancestral house on 16 August 2019. Lipi being the daughter of JDU President and Union Minister RCP Singh has been recorded as the basis of political revenge in the High Court’s decision.
While acquitting Anant Singh, the High Court not only overturned the lower court’s decision but also clearly stated that Lipi Singh’s political animosity and hyperactivity cannot be dismissed. Anant’s lawyer had told the court that the UAPA section was added to the case so that Lipi could become the investigating officer because the IO of a case registered under this section cannot be an officer below the rank of DSP. Lipi denied this allegation in the court. So let’s take a look at how Lipi Singh’s script, i.e. the story of the police, was riddled with questions from the court.
Violation of the legal process of search, seizure and seal
The High Court, while stating that the process of search, seizure and sealing is of utmost importance and that it should be conducted legally, found gross violations in this case.
Absence of independent witness (non-police) during search, seizure and seal
During the search of Anant Singh’s ancestral house, the police did not find any independent witness in the crowd of hundreds of people present there. The police did not even issue a notice to anyone for this, which the court took note of. The police said that people were not becoming witnesses due to fear of Anant, so the court asked them to show the notice they had given to people to become witnesses. The police could not produce any such notice. The police had made two constables Shravan Kumar and Ajit Kumar Singh witnesses.
Not recording the statements of even the police personnel and magistrate who were made independent witnesses
The statements of the two constables whom the police made witnesses of the seizure, caesar and seal were not recorded under 161. These two were not even made witnesses in the charge sheet. A constable said in the court that he had signed the seizure on the orders of the magistrate. The police did not even get the statement of that magistrate recorded under 161 and did not include him as a witness in the charge sheet. Even the signatures of the constables were not there on the seizure list. The entry number of the maalkhana on the seizure was also not found.
The question is whether Anant Singh’s house is open or closed as the lock and key are not sealed
Anant Singh’s ancestral house was locked. The mob named Sunil Ram as the caretaker of the house and he was arrested. He had a key with which the house was opened. The police did not take the lock and key among the seized items. The court considered this a serious lapse. Because of this, the court raised the question of whether the house was open or closed and how can it be believed that the house was closed or open at the time of the search.
AK 47 seized at 11.15 am but sealed at 7.45 pm, police stuck due to eight hours delay
The court noted that according to the police case, AK 47, 26 cartridges and grenades were seized at 11.15 am. But it was sealed at 7.45 pm. The police could not give any satisfactory answer in the court on this 8-hour delay.
The SHO had said that he gave a handwritten statement, but it turned out to be a typed copy
The informant of the case and SHO of Barh police station, Inspector Sanjit Kumar had said that he had given the statement in writing but the statement presented in the court turned out to be a typed and printed copy. The police admitted that there was no computer at the seizure site. The court has taken note of this discrepancy. The defence alleged that Lipi Singh tore Sanjit’s handwritten statement after not finding it to be to her liking and got it typed and forcibly made Sanjit sign it. Lipi denied this allegation.
How a grenade wrapped in a newspaper dated August 27 was found during a police raid on August 16
The police said that two grenades wrapped in a newspaper were recovered during the raid on August 16, 2019. Anant’s lawyers argued that how could a newspaper of 11 days’ advance be recovered during the raid on August 16. SHO Sanjit Kumar also reiterated the matter of August 27 newspaper in the court. The police could not answer the court as to how a newspaper of 11 days’ advance was recovered. The court accepted the argument of Anant’s lawyers as correct and considered the story of the raid and seizure unbelievable.
Police could not prove any relation of Anant Singh with his ancestral home
The police did not present any documents related to Anant Singh’s ancestral house like khata, khesra, etc. to prove that he had possession of the house. Anant Singh had said in his statement to the police that he rarely visited the village. The police could not tell when Anant had visited the house before the raid or for the last time. The police could also not prove that Anant knew about the presence of weapons in the house. The police presented the address mentioned in Anant’s wife Neelam Devi’s nomination paper for the Lok Sabha elections and the papers for her treatment at AIIMS to show Anant’s relation to the raided house, but the court considered it insufficient.
No photo of the search, no photo or clothes of Anant Singh, not even a video
The court also noted that the police could not produce a single photo or video of the hours-long raid, search or seizure even though there were many people present with smartphones. The court also noted that no photo or clothes of Anant Singh were recovered from the house which could prove that he lived in the house or used it regularly.
Not only Anant Singh, police could not even prove Sunil Ram to be their protector
Sunil Ram, whom the police caught on the information of people thinking he was the caretaker of Anant Singh’s house and who opened the gate of the house with the keys recovered from him, could not be proved to be the caretaker of Anant’s house in the court. The police could not even prove that Sunil knew about the weapons in the house.
Questions raised on Lipi Singh’s political animosity and hyper-activism
The High Court has questioned Lipi Singh’s political animosity and over-activity with reference to RCP Singh. Anant Singh’s wife Neelam Devi contested the 2019 general election from Munger Lok Sabha seat on a Congress ticket and was defeated by JDU’s Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lallan Singh. After Neelam’s complaint, the Election Commission removed Lipi Singh from Barh, but after the election she was again posted in Barh. The court has also taken the case against Anant as a political revenge for not following the instructions of RCP Singh and Lallan Singh, who belong to the ruling party.
Lipi had gone to Delhi court in JDU leader’s car to bring Anant Singh on remand
Anant Singh’s lawyers had accused Lipi Singh that the UAPA section was added in this case only so that she could become the IO of the case because only a DSP rank officer can investigate under this section. But a charge sheet was not filed under UAPA. Lipi Singh told the court that the investigation of the allegations made under that section is ongoing. The defense accused Lipi, who went to Delhi to bring Anant Singh, of using JDU MLC Ranveer Nandan’s car, on which Lipi said that she does not remember which car she used to go to the court in Delhi.