The Punjab and Haryana High Court has voiced its disquiet regarding the behavior of a senior advocate, following her allegations of judicial bias against the presiding judge. The allegations arose in the context of an inquiry ordered into her client’s conduct without prior hearing. This development is part of the case titled Gursher Singh Sandhu v State of Punjab.
Justice Sanjay Vashishth, in his order dated August 17, addressed the concerns expressed by Senior Advocate GK Mann, who criticized the court’s decision to initiate an inquiry against her client without his prior input. Mann contended that the court’s actions demonstrated a “complete bias” against her client. However, the judge refrained from passing any remarks on Mann’s conduct, instead urging her to reflect on her statements, which he suggested were not beneficial to the judicial process.
The court emphasized, “This Court would express its concern that such conduct or remarks are never expected from esteemed senior members/designated Senior Advocates of the Bar.”
The proceedings involved anticipatory bail petitions filed by ex-Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu, implicated in two corruption investigations. These include allegations of disproportionate assets, registered by the Punjab State Crime Police Station and the Punjab Vigilance Bureau. On August 17, the court temporarily halted Sandhu’s arrest in both cases.
Sandhu is accused of orchestrating large-scale extortion operations by filing spurious complaints against various individuals, reportedly engaging in benami transactions, and laundering illicit earnings. The complaints against him were initiated by Baljinder Singh, who was represented by Mann in Sandhu’s bail petitions.
More Read
The police allege that “it is prima facie established on record that the petitioner [Sandhu] has misused his official position to gain undue monetary benefit by getting instituted false complaints in a pre-planned manner against different persons, in the name of complainant Baljinder Singh, and thereafter closing said complaints on his own by forging/getting forged signatures of complainant Baljinder Singh on the inquiry proceedings.”
During the August 17 hearing, the court noted the apparent close ties between Sandhu and Singh, with the latter allegedly filing false complaints at Sandhu’s instigation. The court further examined Singh’s claims that Sandhu had obtained his signatures on blank documents, later used to draft complaints against various individuals for extortion purposes. Additionally, Singh accused Sandhu of executing a disputed property transaction in his name.
In light of these allegations, the court inquired whether the police had investigated the complainant’s involvement. The State assured that Singh’s role would be scrutinized to determine potential criminal liability. Justice Vashishth remarked that the State should have proactively investigated this aspect, highlighting a delay attributable to the State itself.
More Read
The court deferred the proceedings, indicating the necessity for the State to present a comprehensive factual and legal analysis before further hearings on the anticipatory bail petitions. “Accordingly, without expressing any kind of opinion on the facts of the case or on merit, present proceeding is deferred to enable the State 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 ordered.
These instructions led to Mann’s objections. The next hearing is set for September 7. Representing the petitioner were Senior Advocate PS Ahluwalia, alongside advocates Vipul Joshi and Bhavi Kapur. Senior Deputy Advocate General Neeraj Madan appeared for the State, while Senior Advocate GK Mann and advocate Shruti represented the complainant.
