How an IAS officer evaded the law for 10 years

How an IAS officer evaded the law for 10 years
AMRITPAL SINGH

NEW DELHI, MAY 16: For over 10 years, a senior Indian Administrative Officer has been playing hide-and-seek with the law. Paramjeet Singh Bhogal, a Maharashtra cadre IAS officer, has evaded court summons and even non-bailable warrants issued by a Delhi court in case of alleged dowry harassment.

Topper of the 1975 batch and now director of World Bank Project based in Mumbai, Bhogal was married in December 1977 at Delhi, according to Sikh rites. The FIR filed in 1988 by his wife alleged that he used to beat her up often and had even developed illicit relations with their maid. In 1987, the wife was allegedly turned out of the house with their two minor children. According to her admission in court, he did not return the gold that she was given as "stri-dhan", by her parents at the time of marriage.

According to records, the Crime Against Women (CAW) cell of Delhi Police sent him four letters in 1990, which were not replied to. In January 1992, the Mahila Court at the Patiala House courts issued him summons to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Bhogal then was posted as the Commissioner of Tribal Affairs at Nashik. The summons came back unserved and signed by Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Affairs saying that Bhogal was no longer the Commissioner and the officer did not know where he was posted.

The court reissued the summons in March '92, this time through the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra. The summons was once again returned unserved on a similar pretext. This went on for six months before the investigating officer (IO) of the case was asked to appear before the court in July '92. According to court records, the investigating officer was absent during the July hearing. The case came up for hearing in October '92 and the MM ordered the IO to go to Mumbai, where Bhogal was posted and serve a non-bailable warrant on him personally. The IO went to Mumbai and came to tell the court that as the accused was an IAS officer his arrest was only possible if the warrant was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In December, the court served summons through the MHA asking the accused to appear in the court by February '93. Bhogal did not abide by court orders and was absent in the February hearing. In June 93, the court directed the Commissioner of Police, Bombay to serve arrest warrants on Bhogal throughthe Crime Branch of Bombay Police. These warrants, which were to be executed by October '93, were also routed through MHA. The summons this time did not return at all. The court reissued non-bailable warrants again. This went on a for three years before the prosecution could produce Bhogal in court in October 1995. The chargesheet in the case was finally filed in court in 1995 -- seven years after the FIR. Bhogal was booked under 406 IPC (Dowry Act) and was granted bail by the court. He assured the court that he would help the prosecution by joining investigations and by appearing before the court as and when asked to.

The accused was asked to appear in court for another hearing three months later. Bhogal did not appear for the hearing and instead sent a letter saying that he was appointed an election observer by the Election Commission so he could not come for the hearing. He asked the court for later date. The court gave the next date for March '96. Bhogal chose to be absent this time as well. He did not send any reply to the court. The court ordered him to appear on another date in August. He did not respond. The court then issued NBW with process 82/83 (seizure of property). The prosecution returned in September, saying no property could be attached as none was found in name of the accused. This was challenged by the complainant. The court reissued the the NBWs and this time the police could not find him but attached his property - a Bush television, because according to police this was the only property found in his name.

The court once again sent a directive to the Maharashtra Chief Secretary to serve him NBW and produce him in court by January '97. This time Bhogal sent an application asking for exemption of personal appearance. This was denied and he was asked to appear in March. He then appeared before the magistrate in March '97 and was once again granted bail after assurance that as he was a public servant, he wouldn't abscond and will appear in court when asked to. Today, more than 12 years later, the case hasn't proceeded further because the accused has been evading the summons and warrants. He has appeared in the court only thrice, since the case began. Six magistrates have changed in the Mahila court ever since the case began. The order issued by MM Shail Jain this month reads, "At this stage, after perusal of the file, I am of the opinion that non-bailable warrants cannot be executed by Delhi Police so Commissioner, Mumbai police should execute the NBW and produce the accused in court by July 3, 2000."