P&H High Court expresses concern over Senior Advocate's conduct after she accuses judge of bias in ex-DSP’s case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed concern over the conduct of a senior counsel after she accused the judge of bias for ordering an inquiry into the actions of her client without hearing her [Gursher Singh Sandhu v State of Punjab]

In the order passed on August 17, Justice Sanjay Vashisth noted that Senior Advocate GK Mann, who was representing a complainant, questioned why the Court passed a direction for inquiry against her client without even hearing him.

Mann is stated to have told the Court that its observations against her client "reflected complete bias on the part of the Court."

The Court said it would refrain from commenting on Mann's conduct and would leave it to her to examine her remarks, which it said were not conducive to the proceedings.

"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 added.

The Court was dealing with anticipatory bail petitions moved by former Punjab Police DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu in two corruption cases, including a disproportionate assets case, registered against him by Punjab State Crime Police Station and Punjab Vigilance Bureau.

On August 17, the Court stayed the arrest of accused, who had been dismissed from service, in both the corruption cases.

Sandhu is accused of indulging in large-scale extortion after getting false complaints registered against various persons. He is also alleged to have indulged in benami transactions and laundering proceeds of crime.

The case against him was registered following a complaint by one Baljinder Singh. Mann represented Singh in Sandhu's petitions seeking anticipatory bail.

According to the police,

"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 complaint Baljinder Singh, on the enquiry proceedings."

During the hearing on August 17, the Court noted that there were close relations between Sandhu and the complainant. Singh allegedly used to make false complaints against different persons in Mohali at Sandhu's behest, the Court added after examining the police reply.

However, the Court also noted Singh's allegations that Sandhu had obtained his signatures on blank papers and thereafter used those to draft complaints against different persons with the intention to extort money from them. It also noted the allegation that Sandhu had got a disputed property executed in Singh's name.

Considering these facts, the Court asked the police whether it had looked into the complainant's actions. In response, the State assured the Court that the complainant's role would be examined to ascertain whether offences were made out against him also.

The Court said the State was expected to look into this aspect on its own.

"However, till date no such consideration or exercise seem to have been undertaken by the respondent-State, thus, the delay on such aspect is attributable to the State itself," it added.

The Court said that before hearing the anticipatory bail petitions any further, it would be appropriate that the factual as well as legal position of the matter are examined by the State.

"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.

It was these directions which were objected to by Mann.

The matter will be heard next on September 7.

Senior Advocate PS Ahluwalia with advocates Vipul Joshi and Bhavi Kapur represented the petitioner.

Senior Deputy Advocate General Neeraj Madan represented the State.

Senior Advocate GK Mann with advocate Shruti represented the complainant.

[Read Order]