Former SP Vineet Vinayak

Patna, June 5: Vineet Vinayak, deputy inspector-general, central range, has earned the ire of Bihar State Human Rights Commission (BSHRC) for giving a “new twist” to a kidnapping story when he was posted as superintendent of police (SP), Nalanda district.

Supervising the abduction case in 2008, Vinayak defied the birth certificate issued by a doctor of Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) and ordered the closure of the case lodged with Rajgir police station.

Taking a serious note of the officer’s defiance, chairman, BSHRC, Justice S.N. Jha has asked Bihar director-general of police Neel Mani to examine the role of the former SP in the case.

The complaint relates to the kidnapping of one Anshu Richa, a resident of Rajgir, in November 2007. An FIR was lodged by the girl’s father Chandra Deep Singh against 17 persons, including a teacher of the school in which his minor daughter was a student of Class IX.

In his supervision note, the then SP Amit Kumar clearly mentioned that the allegations against Sanjeev were found to be true under Section 366 A (kidnapping) and directed the investigating officer to take action against the accused.

Chnadra Deep had submitted his daughter’s birth certificate issued by a PMCH doctor, mentioning that Richa was born on December 9, 1992.

The girl, in her statement, however, denied the kidnapping charge and said she had got married to Sanjeev on her own will. After Amit Kumar was transferred from Nalanda, Vineet Vinayak assumed the charge. Vinayak, in his progress report III issued on April 29, 2008, claimed that the doctor had assessed the age of the girl to be 17-18 years. Medical jurisprudence permits a margin of two years plus/minus. Thus holding that the girl was more than 18 years, Vinayak directed that the final report “mistake of fact” be submitted in the case.

Shocked over the submission of the report, the girl’s father knocked the door of BSHRC. The commission took cognisance of the matter and sought a detailed report from incumbent Nalanda SP Jitendra Singh Rana. During the hearing, the commission found that Vina-yak had tried to give a “new twist to the entire episode to favour the accused”. The commission observed, “Before parting with the file, the commission would like to express its anguish at the manner in which the then SP tried to sabotage the cause of justice.”

Justice Jha said, “So far the medical opinion is concer-ned, the doctor had assessed the girl’s age as 17-18 years, which should have been interpreted as less than 18 years.”