Back
expresses concern over senior advocate's comments in DSP Sandhu case
The has stayed the arrest of DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu in a corruption and extortion case while directing the state to submit a comprehensive report — including an examination of the complainant's role — before the next hearing. The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth also expressed "concern" over remarks made by a senior advocate, warning that such conduct was "never expected" from senior members of the Bar.
A Writ That Unravelled a Web of Allegations
The case originates from a filed by Baljinder Singh before the High Court in , seeking protection of his life and liberty. Acting on the court's order, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Rupnagar, conducted an inquiry that led to the registration of FIR No. 33 on , against DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu. The FIR alleged offences under (corresponding to ) and . A second FIR followed in , adding charges of under .
According to the prosecution's case, DSP Sandhu allegedly used the complainant Baljinder Singh to file false complaints against various individuals. The , as described in the inquiry report, involved fabricating complaints over disputed plots, unpaid token amounts, and even a false claim of money taken for securing a government job. The DSP would then use these manufactured grievances to extort large sums from the accused persons. Investigators claimed to have recovered WhatsApp chats and an audio recording between the DSP and Baljinder Singh supporting these allegations.
Court's Sharp Focus on the State's Inaction
During the hearing of the
pleas, Justice Vashisth noted that despite the court's earlier expectation, the state had not examined whether the complainant himself was complicit in the alleged offences. The bench observed that
"the delay on such aspect is attributable to the State itself"
and directed the government to place before the court
"the complete factual and legal position, including the role of the complainant and any other person, if so warranted."
The court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deferring the matter to allow the state to address the issues raised.
An Unusual Exchange in Court
The proceedings took a sharp turn when Senior Advocate , representing the complainant, objected to the court's direction to examine her client's role. She is reported to have told the court that such an observation "reflected complete " since the complainant had not been heard. Justice Vashisth chose not to engage with the remark directly but expressed his concern in the order:
"This Court would refrain from commenting upon the remarks made by Ms. , learned Senior Advocate, and would rather leave it to Ms. , learned Senior Advocate, to examine the remarks, which were not conducive to the proceedings, after leaving the Court and upon considering the matter in its entirety. However, this Court would express its concern that such conduct or such remarks are never expected from worthy senior members/designated Senior Advocates of the Bar."
The court's observation underscores the importance of maintaining and respect in judicial proceedings, particularly from experienced counsel.
What Happens Next
Justice Vashisth stayed the arrest of DSP Sandhu until the next date of hearing, fixed for . The state has been directed to file a comprehensive response covering all factual and legal aspects, including the role of the complainant and any other individuals who may be involved. The court clarified that the order staying the petitioner's arrest was to the final outcome of the bail applications.
The case has drawn significant attention due to the high-ranking police officer involved and the court's unusual expression of displeasure with a senior advocate's conduct. Legal observers will be watching the September hearing closely for the state's report and the court's further directions.
