Namdhari ‘admits’ shot Hardeep, charged with attempt to murder


One of the accused arrested earlier reportedly disclosed Namdhari's "involvement" in the shootout.

Seeking Namdhari's custody, the police told court that 26 criminal cases had been lodged against him in Uttarakhand between 1993 and 2009, eight of them being of murder, and that he had been accused of threatening people. They had received several requests to cancel his firearms licence, the police said.

Opposing the five-day remand sought by the police, Namdhari's counsel R S Mallik pointed out that it was Namdhari who had lodged an FIR in the case and had also rushed Ponty to hospital.

"How can he be a conspirator considering that the other FIR lodged in the case by Hardeep's driver Nand Lal does not show his involvement?" Mallik said, adding that the arrest itself was illegal.

According to the counsel, Namdhari was only accompanying Ponty to his farmhouse, and that the younger brother had opened fire, forcing his PSOs to fire back at Hardeep in self-defence.

Nand Lal, in his FIR, had not mentioned anything about the shootout and even about Namdhari's presence at the time of the alleged criminal trespassing, Mallik said. He had only identified three persons, who are already in police custody.

Earlier, the liquor baron's four guards — Bhupender, Rajpal, Uday and Anand — were remanded in police custody till November 25 for allegedly entering the disputed farmhouse in South Delhi and thrashing Hardeep's men.

Two others, Vijay Kumar and Madan Rana, working as caretakers at another farmhouse owned by the Chadhas, were arrested by the police on November 18 for allegedly restraining the farmhouse occupants and threatening them.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writer's alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of The Indian Express Group or its staff. Comments are automatically posted live; however, reserves the right to take it down at any time. We also reserve the right not to publish comments that are abusive, obscene, inflammatory, derogatory or defamatory.