Panchkula firing: The shop was rented out on January 1https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/panchkula-firing-the-shop-was-rented-out-on-january-1-5565490/

Panchkula firing: The shop was rented out on January 1

Sources said initial investigation points to an organised racket of gambling being operated from the first floor of SCO-392

Showroom where the firing incident happened in Sector 20, Panchkula, on Wednesday. (Jaipal Singh)

THE FIRST floor of SCO No. 392 in Sector 20, which witnessed a shootout on Wednesday that claimed one life, is owned by K M Gupta, who rented it out to Vinod Kumar of Sector 20 for a monthly rental of Rs 85,000 on January 1 this year.

Three people were critically injured and one Deepak Kumar of Kharar succumbed to his injuries at PGIMER on Thursday. After Deepak’s death, the police have added Section 396 (dacoity with murder) of the IPC in the FIR registered against unknown persons at the Sector 20 police station on Friday. The condition of two others — Sunny and Manoj — is stated to be stable.

Sources said initial investigation points to an organised racket of gambling being operated from the first floor of SCO-392. A police official said, “We are examining the legal aspects of this issue. The SCO owner, K M Gupta, also owns another showroom at the same market. We also learnt that prior to approaching K M Gupta, Vinod Kumar had approached another showroom but he declined to rent his shop to him.”
Sources said that in the last week of December 2018, a team of detective staff had arrested one person for gambling from the same market and had seized Rs 2,700 from them.

Meanwhile, a local shopkeeper claimed at that time, SCO No. 392 on the first floor was also raided by the police for gambling. DCP, Panchkula, Kamaldeep Goel, said, “We are verifying the contents of the earlier case of gambling as well as persons, who were arrested that time. We are also verifying the circumstances in which the dacoity took place.”

Advertising

K M Gupta, owner of the SCO 392, said, “I signed a written agreement with Vinod Kumar for three years. According to the agreement, he was to pay me Rs 85,000 every month. Vinod Kumar told me that he is a financier and property dealer.” When contacted, Vinod Kumar refused to speak on the phone and maintained that he would like to tell his side of the story in person.