Delhi

Grapplers vs Brij Bhushan: BJP leader backs wrestlers’ claims in police charge sheet

The investigation involved the examination of a total of 108 witnesses, including WFI officials. Out of these, 15 have already provided partial or complete corroboration of the allegations levelled against Brij Bhushan by the 'victims'.

New Delhi: The charge sheet filed by Delhi Police against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh discloses that the claims made by two out of the six grapplers against the former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief have been backed by a Haryana BJP leader, who also happens to a former international wrestler.

Related Stories
Delhi court summons BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain in rape case
UWW Suspends Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) Over Election Delay – Indian Wrestlers to Compete as Neutral Athletes
Wrestlers resume duties with Railways, Sakshi refutes reports of withdrawing from protest
Delhi court summons Kejriwal’s wife over voter list allegations by BJP leader
Missing BJP leader held by Hyderabad police

The BJP leader and her sister are among the 15 witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, 

The investigation involved the examination of a total of 108 witnesses, including WFI officials. Out of these, 15 have already provided partial or complete corroboration of the allegations levelled against Brij Bhushan by the ‘victims’.

“During the course of investigation, notices under Section 91 of CrPC were served upon WFI, SAI, victims, nodal officers, telecom companies etc. The team members of the SIT visited different places, including Rohtak, Sonepat, Lucknow, Patiala, Kurukshetra, Hissar, Bhiwani, Chandigarh, Manimajra, and Bellari in Karnataka to examine the relevant persons,” Delhi Police said in the charge sheet running 1599 pages.

It said that before the registration of the current FIR, several victims/complainants had already exercised their democratic right to protest on various issues, including the demand for a criminal investigation into the allegations.

“Even after the FIR was registered, many victims and key corroborating witnesses remained engaged in the protests, often making them unavailable for the investigation,” it said.

According to the charge sheet, “The intense media attention surrounding the wrestlers’ protest also made it impractical to take victims/complainants on outstation visits to gather more specific information. However, this professional investigative exercise is likely to be undertaken soon, and the results will be filed before the court through supplementary police reports under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC.”

The police in its charge sheet also mentioned that the results of digital/electronic devices and exhibits seized and deposited with the concerned forensic labs are yet to be received, and they will be submitted through a supplementary charge sheet.

“The analysis of requisitioned call detail records (CDRs) and other relevant data for the purpose of prosecution will also be submitted promptly,” the charge sheet stated.

Providing details as to why Brij Bhushan and Vinod Tomar, the former Assistant Secretary of WFI, have not been arrested yet, the charge sheet states that both the accused have cooperated with the investigation by complying with the directions under Section 41A of CrPC.

“The charge sheet is now being forwarded to the court for the prosecution of both the accused for the mentioned offences… They may be tried and punished according to the law,” the charge sheet added.

On Tuesday, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court had granted interim bail to Brij Bhushan in connection with the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him by the country’s leading female grapplers.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal also granted interim bail to Tomar.

Appearing for the accused persons, advocate Rajeev Mohan had submitted before court that since the charge sheet has been filed before arrest, he is filing bail bonds.

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, appearing for Delhi Police, said that “We have not arrested him. We leave it to my lord. Condition must be there… I oppose it with condition that he shouldn’t influence witnesses.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button