On October 17, 2026, a significant hearing was held in the special NIA court in Mumbai regarding the alleged filing of a false affidavit against former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh. The petition filed by former ACP Bhimraj Gadge sought action against Singh and the issuance of an arrest warrant. After hearing detailed arguments in the case, the court reserved its order.
Earlier, in this case, the special NIA court had initiated proceedings regarding the investigation of the alleged false affidavit filed by Parambir Singh, issuing a notice to the concerned notary and directing the preservation of necessary records and CCTV footage.
On October 17, 2026, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of Parambir Singh. Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, representing former ACP Bhimraj Gadge, engaged in detailed legal arguments for approximately an hour.
Citing various Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments, Advocate Nilesh Ojha argued that a potential accused does not have an automatic right to file a counter-affidavit or interfere in judicial proceedings during a preliminary investigation into alleged false evidence and affidavits.
He stated that Parambir Singh’s counter-affidavit should not be accepted on record and the court should proceed with the proceedings in accordance with the law without considering it.
According to Gadge’s side, the court seriously considered these legal arguments and reserved its order after the hearing was completed.
During the arguments, Gadge’s lawyers raised serious questions about the veracity of two key statements in Parambir Singh’s affidavit.
The first allegation—the claim of being present and signing before a notary is questionable.
Gadge’s side claimed that Parambir Singh claimed to have signed the affidavit, while CCTV footage from the relevant notary office and surrounding areas does not show his alleged presence there.
Additionally, there are claims of discrepancies between two signatures on the affidavit. The lawyers stated that under these circumstances, it is necessary to investigate the authenticity of the affidavit, the signatures, and the notarization process.
Second Allegation: The Claim of Bhimraj Gadge as a “stooge” of Anil Deshmukh is False
The Gadge side also strongly objected to Parambir Singh’s description of former ACP Bhimraj Gadge as a “stooge,” meaning a puppet, of former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.
The lawyers argued that Gadge himself is a witness in the ongoing case against Anil Deshmukh. Therefore, calling him a puppet of Anil Deshmukh is baseless and an attempt to damage his credibility.
The Gadge side also pointed out that Bhimraj Gadge is a witness before the CBI in the investigation related to the Disha Salian case. The court was also informed of the recent ₹2,000 crore defamation suit filed by Disha’s father, Satish Salian, in connection with the same case.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha, Advocate Tanveer Nizam, Advocate Abhishek Mishra, Advocate Anushka Sonawane, Advocate Devkrishna Bhambri, Advocate Shivam Gupta, Advocate Ayush Tiwari, Advocate Payal Padwale, and other advocates were present during the October 17 hearing. Former police officer Sachin Vaze and other accused were also present in court.
Gadge’s side urged the court to take action in accordance with the law on serious allegations, such as the filing of an alleged false affidavit in judicial proceedings, to maintain the sanctity and credibility of the judicial process.
The court’s upcoming order regarding the admissibility of Parambir Singh’s counter-affidavit, the alleged forged signatures, and the proceedings related to the false affidavit is considered crucial. The court has reserved its order for now.