Former Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi said a court is empowered to summon any person at any point if it notices incriminating material. “Pandher was summoned on the basis of evidence before the court,” he said. “The court felt he could be charged under the said offences; technically there was nothing wrong in it.”

Sodhi has handled, among other high-profile cases, the murders of Jessica Lall, Naina Sahni, and Priyadarshini Mattoo. Referring to a court’s discretionary power, he said, “Ultimately it is the court which has to decide whether to summon an accused. It can read between the lines — it can rely on corroborative evidence, or any other evidence it decides to lend credence to.”

Senior criminal lawyer R K Naseem also said that a court is “unequivocally competent” to summon an accused under the provisions of CrPC and judgments of the apex court, which is the law of the land. “There is no illegality if Pandher was made an accused on the basis of material on record and a damning statement,” Naseem said. “The decision could be questioned only if the court relied upon statements of police officials before holding he could be sent up for trial under the charge of conspiracy.”

Senior public prosecutor J P Sharma, the CBI counsel, said it was the judge’s discretion to put Pandher up for trial after taking cognisance of penal provisions. The discretion, in this case, was exercised considering the statement given by victim’s father Anil Haldar.

Haldar had recorded his statement as the second prosecution witness in November 2007. He had testified that when he reached D-5 on December 29, 2006, he heard Pandher instructing Koli to eliminate Payal, another victim, as she was allegedly blackmailing him.