Acting on a petition filed by the parents of Shaganpreet Singh — former manager of murdered Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala — the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that the investigations into three FIRs be supervised by a senior IPS officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG). Justice Manisha Batra made it clear that arrest safeguards applied irrespective of the allegations or criminal antecedents of a person.The petitioners had moved the court for protection of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Directions were also sought for constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by senior police officers from outside Ludhiana district and Khanna “independent of the local police hierarchy.” In the alternative, directions were sought for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.“The petitioners’ grievance arises from the alleged conduct of police officials of CIA Staff Khanna and other police stations in connection with their son, Shaganpreet Singh, who, according to the petitioners, was publicly disowned and disinherited by them in 2021 through a public notice and civil proceedings. It is their case that they have no relationship or connection with him thereafter, but the police officials have been using the petitioners as a means of exerting pressure upon him as he is residing abroad and is allegedly involved in criminal cases,” Justice Batra’s Bench was told.The court observed the petitioners had approached the Court alleging, among other things, that they were illegally detained by the police, subjected to pressure and threatened with “regard to the payment of money.”Allegations were also levelled regarding the removal of the DVR installed at their residence, along with cash and jewellery, and non-preservation of CCTV footage and other electronic evidence. The State, in its reply, denied the allegations of illegal detention and submitted that the petitioners were arrested in the cases in accordance with law. It was further stated that the DVR was taken into possession as case property and sent to the FSL. The report was awaited.Justice Batra observed the State’s reply made it evident that the petitioners and their son were named in more than one criminal case registered in connection with allegations of extortion, threats and firing incidents. The State referred to the statements of certain accused persons, the alleged financial transactions and other material collected during investigation to support the involvement attributed to the petitioners. The petitioners, on the other hand, pointed out that they were not named in the FIRs at the time of their registration.Justice Batra asserted the allegations raised by the petitioners could not be ignored merely on the ground that several criminal cases were registered against them. The protection of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution was not confined to persons against whom no accusation had been levelled.Before parting with the order, the Bench added the supervising officer would monitor the progress of the investigation and ensure it was conducted fairly, objectively and strictly in accordance with law. The supervising officer would ensure that the DVR already taken into possession, the FSL report, CCTV footage and other relevant electronic evidence were duly preserved and examined in accordance with law.“The allegations raised by the petitioners regarding illegal detention, demand of money and removal or destruction of electronic evidence shall be considered in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order,” Justice Batra added.