A CBI court has summoned two Punjab Police officers on May 1 to face trial in the alleged custodial death of a Ludhiana woman at Dugri police station in 2017 even as the state government has refused to grant prosecution sanction against two others — Additional DCP Kuldeep Sharma and then ACP Rupinder Kaur Bhatti, both PPS officers and named as accused in CBI chargesheet.The CBI court of special judicial magistrate Karanvir Singh Maju has ordered sub-inspector Dalvir Singh, who was then SHO of Dugri police station and ASI Manjeet Singh (then reader to the SHO), to face trial for multiple offences including wrongful confinement, knowingly disobeying legal directions regarding investigations, knowingly framing incorrect record, forging a legal document, intentionally submitting fabricated evidence, criminal conspiracy, causing disappearance of evidence among others.The court passed the order on March 23 but its copy was made available on Wednesday. The case pertains to the alleged death of Ramandeep Kaur in custody who along with her fiancé Mukul Garg was arrested by the Dugri police on August 4, 2017 for alleged ATM data theft and frauds.Ramandeep was found hanging inside a washroom at the police station in wee hours of August 5, with Garg alleging that she was tortured during the interrogation. Ludhiana police had claimed that she had hanged herself with her dupatta.“In view of the opinion from medical experts, it is clear that the cause of death of Ramandeep Kaur was ante-mortem hanging. which is suicidal in nature. The injuries found on the wrist were self-inflicted… using the kitchen knife from the office space where she was kept during the night at Dugri police station,” the CBI submitted in the court.The premier investigation agency also established that “police officials at Dugri committed serious violations of the law”, including “illegal detention to extract confessions”, “forging Ramandeep’s signatures on the arrest memos”, making back-date entries to show the “arrest of both individuals during the intervening night of August 4 and 5 at 12:30 am”.It added that Mukul and Ramandeep were “nominated” as an accused in one particular FIR, which was initially registered against “unknown persons” and later the two witnesses on whose identification they were nominated denied visiting Dugri police station, thus “discrediting” Ludhiana Police’s version.Story continues below this adConcluding that the “serious violations of the law” were committed “at the behest of” both PPS officers, the CBI submitted that S-I Dalbir Singh “illegally detained Garg and Ramandeep at the police station on August 4 at the behest of Bhatti and Sharma to extract confessions regarding cybercrime incidents” in Ludhiana.The CBI further informed the court that Alok Shekhar, additional chief secretary (home and justice), vide an order, has decided “not to accord prosecution sanction” against Sharma and Bhatti.In the order dated January 16, 2026 (copy with The Indian Express), Shekhar wrote: “The comments received from the office of the DGP Punjab, conclude that no culpability is made out against the two officers, and their prosecution is not warranted”. The order further concludes that the CBI has also failed to present “any new facts or evidence” against the two officers.The CBI in its probe claimed that “Bhatti and Sharma…had instructed the SHO to summon Garg and Ramandeep to unearth their involvements in cyber crime cases in Ludhiana” and both officers also “joined the interrogation after the post-sunset raid and and left after midnight”. “This shows they were in agreement with the SHO for the common purpose of committing illegal detention and interrogation as a part of criminal conspiracy. Being senior police officers they failed to ensure legal compliances,” the CBI submitted.Story continues below this adHowever, denying the prosecution sanction, the Punjab home department order, says: “There is no evidence of prior meeting of minds, premeditation or agreement between the officers and other accused personnel… Mere presence at a police station or questioning, in the absence of evidence of illegal intent or agreement, cannot attract criminal conspiracy”.Three other persons initially named as accused in the case — ASI Sukhdev Singh, and constables Amandeep Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur — have also been discharged during the course of investigation by the CBI “for want of sufficient evidence”. The trio have turned witnesses in the case.Garg, who has been fighting for justice, told the The Indian Express that they were to get married in October 2017. “The entire course of my life changed following her death”.Following Ramandeep’s death, Garg had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, demanding a CBI probe in the case and alleged that he and his wife were tortured in police custody. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by IPS V. Neerja, then posted as IG Ropar range, probed the case on HC’s orders and held four police officers negligent while on duty, due to which the woman was able to commit suicide.Story continues below this adThe Punjab Police on June 13, 2019 registered an FIR at Dugri police station against the four policemen (Dalvir Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Rajwinder Kaur and Amandeep Kaur) under Section 304-A (causing death due to negligence).In an affidavit dated December 3, 2019 submitted in the HC, then ACP (South) Jashandeep Singh Gillinformed that it was found that Dugri police also “forged and fabricated” signatures of Ramandeep on the arrest memo and they did not match with her original signatures as per the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mohali. Hence, forgery sections were also added to the FIR.Following a HC order dated March 11, 2024, the investigation was transferred to the CBI which registered a fresh FIR on May 10, 2024, and sought prosecution sanction from the Punjab government against two gazetted officers (Bhatti and Sharma) after completion of the probe.Story continues below this adThe section 304-A (causing death due to negligence) was also dropped, and now the two lower rank police officers will face trial under the sections 120-B, 166-A, 167, 193, 201, 218, 342, 348 and 471 of IPC.