Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Paramvir Singh is known for his controversial image. Whether it’s the case of implanting a bomb in a car near Antilia, the home of renowned industrialist Mukesh Ambani, with the help of his associates, the Mansukh Hiren murder case, or the case of extortion with the help of corrupt police officers like Sachin Vaze, Paramvir Singh has been accused in numerous such cases. However, relying on his influence in the corridors of power and his own tactics, he has consistently managed to exonerate himself from these charges and has never been jailed in any case. However, now, in the Sushant Singh Rajput and Disha Salian cases, in which influential figures like Aditya Thackeray, Dino Morea, and Rhea Chakraborty are accused, Paramvir Singh is also likely to face jail for protecting these accused. Although Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, named Paramvir Singh as an accused in the Disha Salian case, which was transferred from the Mumbai Police to the CBI, no charges against him have yet been verified. However, when Paramvir Singh himself filed an affidavit in court following allegations leveled against him by his subordinate, ACP Bhimraj Ghadge, this affidavit was also suspected to be forged. A verdict in this case is expected on November 23rd. If this affidavit is proven to be forged, Paramvir Singh’s chances of facing jail time for misleading the court have increased.
The next hearing in the controversial affidavit case involving former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh has been scheduled for November 23rd by the Special NIA court. This entire case is surrounded by allegations of submitting a fake affidavit, forging signatures, and providing false evidence in court proceedings.
A look at the case reveals the following:
1. Allegations of forged signatures and absence: Former ACP Bhimraj Ghadge has filed a petition in the special NIA court. He alleges that the signature on the affidavit submitted in the Sachin Vaze case in the court in the name of Parambir Singh is forged and not his original signature.
2. CCTV footage evidence: According to the complainant’s lawyer, Nilesh Ojha, CCTV footage has been obtained from the building where the affidavit was claimed to have been notarized. This footage does not show Parambir Singh entering or leaving the building on that day. It is alleged that someone else entered the building and forged the signature in his place.
3. Demand for action under serious sections: Presenting false or fabricated documents in court is a serious offense. Therefore, the petitioner has requested the court to prosecute Parambir Singh for misleading the court, perjury, and contempt.
What is the court doing in this matter?
Arguments from both sides: During the recent hearing, the court witnessed a heated exchange between the two sides. While the complainant’s lawyer demanded strict action against this fraud, the government and opposing lawyers questioned the petitioner’s locus standi, i.e., the legal right to intervene in this matter.
Next Step (November 23rd Hearing): The court is considering the seriousness of this matter. Following the hearing on November 5th, the court has scheduled a hearing for November 23rd at 3:00 pm to hear both parties, which may provide further decisions or directions on the validity of the petition and the allegations of fraud.