On 7 October 2025, Additional Director General of Police Y. Puran Kumar was found dead at his Chandigarh residence with a single gunshot wound. His eight-page handwritten note, naming senior serving and retired officers and alleging prolonged caste-based harassment, transformed a private tragedy into a national crisis. A week later, on 14 October, Assistant Sub-Inspector Sandeep Kumar Lathar of Rohtak was discovered dead in an apparent suicide; he left a three-page note and a 6:26-minute video accusing Kumar of wide-ranging corruption and claiming his own act was a sacrificial protest.
The two deaths have produced divergent, mutually contradicting narratives – one that foregrounds systemic Dalit persecution within the police, another that alleges organised graft and quid pro quo dealings. As investigations proceed, the case has exposed institutional distrust, community fault-lines and the fragility of public faith in a force that is supposed to be the bulwark of the rule of law.
Haryana Police Suicides Timeline
Kumar, a 2001-batch IPS officer from the Haryana cadre, hailed from the ‘Mala’ Scheduled Caste in Secunderabad. He was married to IAS officer Amneet P. Kumar. In his note, Kumar accused nine serving IPS officers, including Haryana DGPShatrujeet Singh Kapur, a retired IPS, ex-Rohtak SP Narendra Bijarniya, and three retired IAS officers of orchestrating professional sabotage, public humiliation and casteist slurs that, he said, destroyed his professional dignity.
Chandigarh Police registered an FIR on 7 October under Section 108 (abetment of suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and initial sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the family objected that the SC/ST clauses were diluted, the FIR was amended on 12 October to include Section 3(2)(v) of the Act – a provision carrying life imprisonment where offences attracting 10-year sentences or more are committed against SC/ST persons. A six-member Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by an inspector-general, was constituted; Kumar’s phones and laptops were seized for forensic analysis. The family withheld consent for post-mortem and last rites for eight days, demanding arrests; on 15 October, Amneet consented and the autopsy at PGIMER, Chandigarh, confirmed a gunshot wound consistent with suicide. Cremation followed that evening.
The Lathar case complicated the picture. Rohtak Sadar police registered an FIR (details withheld) on 15 October under BNS Section 108 and criminal conspiracy, naming Amneet, her brother (reported as Punjab MLA Amit Rattan Kotfatta), Kumar’s gunman Sushil Kumar, and another person. Lathar’s video – selfie-style, emotional and defiant – alleges a ₹50 crore payoff from a gangster, smaller bribe transactions routed via Sushil, and an extortion regime that benefited some seniors while punishing honest officers. The video praises Kapur and Bijarniya as “honest” and frames Lathar’s act as a protest to “awaken people”. His family, however, initially refused to accept the suicide narrative, alleging he had been tortured and demanding a fair probe. Autopsy and cremation in Rohtak were completed on 15 October amid intense local demonstrations and police honours.
Caste Persecution Claims vs. Corruption Exposés
The two notes present mutually exclusive accounts. Kumar’s note speaks of caste-motivated persecution; Lathar’s video portrays Kumar as corrupt, suggesting the suicide was an escape from exposure. This forces investigators and journalists to consider multiple hypotheses: that Kumar’s allegations are true; that Lathar’s revelations indicate culpability; or that both accounts are parts of a larger theatre – factional strife within the Haryana Police, manipulated narratives, and perhaps manufactured evidence.
To pierce this fog, investigators must establish forensic truths swiftly: handwriting, ink and paper authentication for both notes; digital forensics on phones and cloud backups; metadata, timestamps and origin checks for the video; CCTV and duty-roster verification; and exhaustive asset and bank audits for the officers named. Transparency about the chain of custody is essential to offset the family’s distrust and the cacophony on social media.
Investigative Roadblocks
Several procedural issues have deepened public scepticism. The family’s initial refusal to allow Kumar’s post-mortem and cremation reflected profound mistrust of state institutions; the body was moved to PGIMER without consent, inflaming tensions. The SIT’s composition, drawn from policing ranks, has prompted calls for independent oversight. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) took suo motu cognisance on 12 October, and a Public Interest Litigation seeking a CBI probe was filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking judicial monitoring and citing ‘systematic Dalit demoralisation’.
The state government has taken administrative steps: Bijarniya was transferred and then suspended on 12 October, and DGPKapur was sent on leave on 14 October, with an additional DGP appointed in the interim. Yet the delay in arrests, opacity over FIR texts (particularly in Lathar’s case) and the time taken to seize and forensically examine devices have fuelled claims of selective protection and procedural foot-dragging.
Corruption Allegations, Martyr Rhetoric, and Forensic Urgency
Lathar’s 6:26-minute video, widely circulated on social media before police seizure, is accusatory and theatrical. In the clip,he describes himself as sacrificing his life against a corrupt system, invokes martyrs, and names transactions and personalities, without producing documentary proof. Reported allegations include a ₹50 crore payment from a gangster to quash a murder case and smaller bribes channelled through Sushil. Lathar declares Kumar’s suicide “not a caste case” but an escape from accountability. His tone is resolute; he frames his act as a moral intervention.
Forensic authentication of the video, including its metadata, creation timestamp, and any subsequent edits, is crucial. Equally crucial is independent verification of the specific allegations: bank transfers, property records, recorded communications with named third parties (including the gangster Rao Inderjit and liquor trader Praveen Bansal), and interrogation of witnesses, including Sushil, the businessman whose FIR precipitated events on 6 October, and colleagues who interacted with both deceased men.
Political Meddling and Dalit Discrimination
The case has polarised public opinion along caste and regional lines. Dalit organisations and civil rights groups stress Kumar’s Ambedkarite lineage and insist his note speaks to systemic discrimination in the force; they see the invocation of corruption as a deliberate counter-narrative designed to delegitimise Dalit claims. Conversely, Jat groups and local constituencies in Rohtak and Jind rallied around Lathar, framing him as an anti-corruption martyr. Viral posts on X have amplified both narratives, sometimes with misleading snippets and unverified claims.
Politically, the matter has been escalated: Union ministers such as Ramdas Athawale and Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have visited the bereaved and demanded action; the Chief Minister’s much-quoted remark that he “couldn’t even suspend a peon” was seized upon as either an admission of limited executive control over the police or an evasion of responsibility. The net effect has been heightened public pressure, as well as the politicisation of investigatory steps.
Forensics, Audits, and What Could Seal the Corruption Case
If the SIT, subject to judicial oversight, can establish a pattern of caste-motivated harassment that materially contributed to Kumar’s death, and link culpability to named officers, the case would set a rare precedent for employing the SC/ST Act against senior police officials. If, alternatively, forensic evidence corroborates Lathar’s claims of corrupt deals and financial trails linking Kumar or associates to criminal actors, criminal prosecutions under the relevant BNS provisions would follow.
Either outcome demands transparent, time-bound processes: independent forensic audits, verified redactions of evidentiary materials before public release, and court monitoring of the chain-of-custody to reassure parties that evidence is neither planted nor eliminated.
Urgent Reforms in Police Forces
Beyond individual culpability, the twin tragedies expose deeper fissures: lack of an effective, confidential grievance mechanism inside police services; the persistence of caste bias in informal networks that shape careers; and opacity in internal disciplinary procedures. The NCSC’s demand for retired High Court judge oversight, calls for anti-caste sensitisation training, and advocacy for external complaint cells are not rhetorical; they are immediate policy prescriptions.
For the public, the clarion question is ‘whether the state will pursue truth with impartiality or retreat into proceduralism and political soundbites.’ Symbolic measures like placing officers on leave or offering jobs to bereaved families will not substitute for transparent investigations and institutional reform.
Pursuit of Justice
Two deaths, two notes, and a toxic confluence of caste grievance, allegations of corruption and institutional suspicion – that is the present reality. The work of the SIT, the High Court and independent forensic experts must now be shielded from public posturing and partisan spectacle. Judicial monitoring, swift forensic disclosures (with necessary redactions), asset audits and third-party verification of the video are essential steps to move from contested narratives to documented facts.
Kumar’s last note implored that his truth be heard; Lathar’s final video claimed to expose a corrupt web. India’s legal institutions now have an opportunity, and an obligation, to determine which, if either, reflects the truth. Only a transparent, impartial and expeditious process can ensure that these twin tragedies catalyse accountability rather than deepen communal fissures and scepticism towards the very institutions that are meant to protect citizens and uphold the rule of law.