A Gurgaon district court on Friday ordered the Haryana Special Task Force (STF) to conduct a lie detector test on IPS officer Dheeraj Kumar Setia, who is accused of allegedly accepting a bribe to cover up a multi-crore theft case last year, from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) CBI, New Delhi, rather than the FSL Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
Setia had requested that his polygraph test be performed by an independent agency rather than FSL Gandhinagar or any other FSL mentioned in an earlier application submitted by the prosecution in May 2022.
In an order issued on Friday, Additional Sessions Judge Tarun Singal stated, “… the applicant’s concern that the test may not be conducted in a fair or impartial manner is not entirely unfounded.”
According to the court, the accused alleged that when he went to FSL Gandhinagar on July 11 and 12, he was not permitted to have the aforementioned test conducted in the presence of his lawyer, and the FSL lab directed that the name of the lawyer be listed in the order. He was told that the lawyer would not be allowed to remain present throughout the preliminary proceedings. On July 25, the court granted the accused’s application and ordered that the test be conducted in the presence of his counsel, as directed by the Supreme Court in an earlier case.
On August 2, the accused appeared before an officer in Gandhinagar, where the officer informed the applicant that the advocate would not be permitted to attend the preliminary interrogation and would only be permitted to sit in the adjoining room during the recording of the lie detector test.
“It was also said that the applicant would be forced to sit in a soundproof room where the advocate would be able to see him but the applicant would not be able to see or feel his counsel’s presence in the room where the test would be done.” The applicant objected to FSL’s conduct, but in vain, and they informed him that the exam will be conducted according to their method. The applicant claimed that STF had obtained the test of Dr Gurpratap Singh (one of the accused in the case) from FSL, CBI, New Delhi on its own, but “in the case of the applicant, they are attempting to influence the results… by selecting FSL as per their convenience,” the court stated.
The prosecution admitted in its reply filed on September 21 along with the report of FSL Gandhinagar that the accused was present in their lab between July 12 and 16 and between August 2 and 3, and that during the second time, the accused and his advocate insisted on remaining present in the instrument room. According to the prosecution, an advocate is permitted to observe the polygraph test procedure through the one-way mirror of the polygraph lab, but the accused requested in writing that he be allowed to exercise his legal rights.
The court stated that based on FSL’s response, it was clear that the polygraph test could not be conducted from July 12 to July 16 because the lab refused to allow the preliminary interrogation to be conducted in the presence of an advocate and raised the frivolous objection that the name of the advocate was not mentioned in the court’s order dated May 31.
“Thereafter, on 25.7.2022, a special order was issued in this regard.” Even after that, the lawyer was not permitted to enter the instrument room and was only permitted to sit in chamber and see the procedure through a one-way mirror. At this point, the applicant/accused has raised a specific objection in his application that said room was soundproof. “However, in response to the said averment, the prosecution’s or FSL Gandhinagar’s reply is conspicuously silent,” the court said.
The court went on to say, “As a result, it cannot be ascertained whether the instrument room was soundproof or not.” If the room was soundproof, the appearance of an advocate in the instrument room would be useless. Adopting such a technique is a flagrant violation of the Honourable Apex Court’s judgement.”