84 riots: Tytler says no reason by CBI for lie detection test

Congress leader Jagdish Tytler today told a Delhi court that CBI has not given any reason in its plea to conduct lie detection test on him in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.
Tytler, who did not appear before the court personally, filed an application through his lawyer stating that the CBI plea was a "gross misuse of law" and it was filed with "malafide intention".
Arms dealer Abhishek Verma, who was also issued notice by the court on the CBI plea, appeared before the court and said he stands by his statement given to the probe agency earlier and was ready to join investigation.

Advocate Maninder Singh, who represented Verma, also said CBI has not given any reason to conduct lie detection test on him and he was ready to record his statement before a magistrate unser section 164 CrPC.
He also sought a week's time to file his reply on the plea.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shivali Sharma granted time to Verma to file his reply and listed the matter for February 23 for hearing arguments on CBI's application.

Senior advocate H S Phoolka, who represented the riot victims, said Tytler had earlier given a statement to the media that he was ready to undergo lie detection test.

The court had on February 8 issued notice to Tytler and Verma on CBI's plea.
The case pertains to death of three Sikhs in the aftermath of the riots that broke out after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Tytler has been given a clean chit by CBI thrice in the case but the probe agency has been directed by the court to further investigate the matter.
Verma has made several statements to CBI against the senior Congress leader that he allegedly pressurised witnesses in the case.
CBI in its plea has said, "For the purpose of further

investigation, polygraph test (lie detection test) needs to be conducted on Abhishek Verma and Jagdish Tytler".
It has cited the court's December 4, 2015 order in which it was mentioned that lie detection test may be conducted, if required.
"The presence of these two persons namely, Abhishek Verma and Jadgish Tytler is necessary before this court to accord their consent about the polygraph test (lie detection test)," the plea while seeking the court's direction to Tytler and Verma to appear before it.
The court had earlier held that Verma in his statement to CBI disclosed an "active role" played by Tytler in extending a "helping hand" to a witness against him.

It had noted that the statement given by Verma to CBI in which he has claimed that Tytler had sent the son of Surinder Singh Granthi, a key witness against him, to Canada cannot be a "sheer coincidence" and the agency should probe if it is true.
The case pertains to riots at Gurudwara Pulbangash in north Delhi where three people were killed on November 1, 1984, a day after the assassination of Indira Gandhi.
The court had in December 2015 directed CBI to further investigate the matter and had said it would monitor the probe every two months so that no aspect of the matter is left uninvestigated.

CBI had re-investigated the case of killing of Badal Singh, Thakur Singh and Gurcharan Singh near the gurudwara after a court in December 2007 refused to accept its closure report. CBI has filed three closure reports in the case.
(Reopens LDG 22)
While opposing CBI's plea for lie detection test, Tytler's counsel submitted that the Congress leader has appeared before the CBI twice and has also recorded his statement to the investigating officer.
He said there was no reason mentioned in CBI's plea for seeking permission to conduct the test and it was done to harass Tytler.
The court, however, said it cannot force the probe agency to disclose their line of investigation and even it cannot force Tytler and Verma to undego the test and they could say no, if they do not want it.

When Verma's counsel said the CBI was unnecessary asking for the test as he was not shying away and is ready to join the probe, the court said it was done just to check whether he was lying or telling the truth.
"They (CBI) might have found some contradiction in your statement that is why they are asking for it," the court said adding that it was up to them to give consent or deny it.
Verma also told the court that he has filed complaints with the CBI and Delhi Police that since the time he has made statement to CBI, he and his family was facing threat and sought protection.

Advocate Phoolka said safety of the witness' was necessary and if Verma was facing threats, he should be provided adequate protection.
The court asked the CBI to file a reply on action taken by it on Verma's complaint.