PHAGWARA: Parvinder Kaur, mother of UK-based NRI Jaspreet Kaur, has alleged serious lapses in the police investigation after Punjabi singer Hassan Manak was sent to 14-day judicial custody on Thursday in a case involving allegations of fraud, bigamy and sexual assault. Speaking to reporters on Friday, she claimed that “neither did the police seek custodial remand nor did they attempt to recover crucial evidence, ” expressing suspicion of foul play and urging authorities to ensure justice for her daughter.
Kaur reiterated her allegation that the accused misrepresented himself as unmarried and established a relationship with her daughter under false pretenses. She said that despite the gravity of the complaint, the investigation had not progressed with the urgency such cases require.
The case originates from a detailed complaint filed earlier this year, wherein the victim’s family alleged that Manak befriended the woman online, concealed his marital status, obtained significant financial assistance from the family in the name of marriage arrangements, and later coerced the victim into physical relations under the assurance that he was her lawful husband. The FIR invokes multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including those dealing with cheating, fraud, criminal intimidation, and sexual misconduct.
Questions over the investigative approach of the police intensified after a local district court on Thursday remanded the accused to judicial custody . Legal experts note that such interrogation often enables recovery of digital evidence, verification of financial transactions, and examination of communication records—key elements in cases involving alleged misrepresentation and sexual exploitation.
These concerns were also echoed earlier in June, when the Additional District and Sessions Judge, while hearing the accused’s anticipatory bail plea, observed that Section 69 of the BNS appeared to be relevant considering the nature of the allegations. The court had noted that offences under Section 69—relating to sexual relations secured through deceit affecting bodily autonomy—are “serious in nature” and typically warrant deeper investigation, often facilitated through police custody.
Despite these judicial observations, the police have yet to invoke Section 69 in the case. They have also not publicly explained their decision to forego seeking police remand, prompting speculation about whether crucial evidence—such as digital records, financial trails, and alleged wedding-related video material—might remain unexamined.
Police sources indicate that the matter may now undergo internal review following the court’s remarks. Meanwhile, the victim’s family continues to press for a transparent and thorough investigation, expressing concern that delays or omissions at this stage could affect evidence collection.
As the case proceeds, the court’s directions on the application of relevant legal provisions and the need for rigorous investigative steps are expected to influence the next phase of proceedings. Observers will be watching whether the police revise the charges, request custodial remand at a later stage, and address the gaps highlighted during court hearings.