Pradeep Poojary Case Should Be Handed Over to CID, Demands Brother Dilip Poojary
Udupi: Demanding that the investigation into the death of Perdoor resident Pradeep Poojary be handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), his brother Dilip Poojary said the family had lost faith in the district police administration and no longer believed that the local police could conduct a fair and impartial investigation.
Addressing a press conference in Udupi, Dilip alleged that the police had violated the law by failing to ensure the safety of an injured Pradeep while he was in their custody and by refusing to accept his complaint. Describing the incident as a custodial death, he also alleged discrimination and favouritism within the police department, pointing out that while lower-ranking personnel had been suspended, Hiriyadka Sub-Inspector Puneeth, who was allegedly involved in the same incident, had merely been sent on compulsory leave.
Dilip demanded the immediate suspension of SI Puneeth for alleged dereliction of duty, the arrest of those accused of assaulting Pradeep, and adequate security and legal protection for the bereaved family, which he claimed had been subjected to continuous harassment.
He announced that the Perdoor Citizens’ Protection Committee would organise a public protest meeting in Udupi on November 11 to condemn the alleged injustice, police excesses and administrative failures in the case.
Meanwhile, Hindu organisation leader Srikanth Shetty, speaking to the media, demanded that the District Superintendent of Police (SP) also be brought under the purview of the investigation into Pradeep Poojary’s suspicious death and the alleged negligence of the police in handling the case. He also called for the immediate suspension of SI Puneeth.
Shetty alleged that the police department was directly responsible for Pradeep’s death. He claimed that Pradeep had died by suicide after being distressed by the police’s alleged failure to register an FIR against those who had assaulted him and his belief that the police were shielding the accused. He said the proposed agitation would also target those who had allegedly exerted pressure to prevent a case from being registered against the local SI.
He announced that a large-scale protest would be held in Udupi on November 11 to raise these issues.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the progress of the investigation, Shetty said that despite several protests demanding justice for Pradeep, the only significant actions taken so far were the suspension of two police personnel and the decision to send SI Puneeth on leave.
He further alleged that the manner in which the District SP had spoken about the case had hurt Pradeep’s family members, villagers and leaders of organisations supporting them. Describing the SP’s statement as one-sided, Shetty claimed that it had failed to express sympathy over the death of the young man or acknowledge the alleged moral policing he had faced and the suffering of his family. Instead, he alleged, the statement had focused primarily on the young woman involved in the incident.
Clarifying that they had no objection to the police expressing concern for the young woman, Shetty said equal consideration should also be given to the young man who had lost his life. He alleged that Pradeep was being portrayed as a rapist and a criminal without the matter being properly examined.
Referring to the medical report, Shetty claimed that it reportedly recorded no external injuries on the young woman. He also questioned whether an assault of the nature alleged could have occurred while both individuals were travelling on the same motorcycle. He said several questions remained unanswered and demanded a detailed explanation from the authorities.
Shetty also questioned why SI Puneeth had been sent on compulsory leave instead of being suspended. He expressed suspicion that the decision might have been taken to spare senior officers from complications that could arise from a formal suspension. He said these developments had raised serious concerns about the functioning of the district police administration and weakened public confidence in its ability to deliver justice.
Demanding that the District SP also be questioned as part of the further investigation, Shetty called for a comprehensive inquiry into whether anyone had exerted pressure or influence on the SP and whether there had been attempts to suppress the case at someone’s behest.
He emphasised that only a comprehensive, fair and impartial investigation could establish the facts and ensure justice for everyone involved.
