Taking up his petition, Justice MMS Bedi today issued notice of motion to the Punjab government to file its reply by September 23Controversial former Gurdaspur Superintendent of Police Salwinder Singh, now absconding from duty, has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court through his counsel seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him for rape and corruption.
Taking up his petition, Justice MMS Bedi today issued notice of motion to the Punjab government to file its reply by September 23. Salwinder, presently posted as Assistant Commandant with 75th battalion of Punjab Armed Police at Jalandhar, had hit headlines after his SUV was allegedly kidnapped by Pakistani terrorists before they carried out an attack on Pathankot Air Force Base in January this year. National Investigation Agency (NIA) had questioned Salwinder over his claims after inconsistency was found in his revelations about his abduction along with his cook and a jeweler friend.
It was on August 3 that a case under Section 376-C (rape by a public servant after taking advantage of his official position) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at City Police station, Gurdaspur, was filed against Salwinder. Thereafter, he has been absconding from duty and police had not been able to arrest him.
The case was registered after a probe conducted by Pathankot SP (Headquarters) GS Khurana found Salwinder guilty as there were mobile call records between the alleged Gurdaspur-based female victim and Salwinder. The probe was done after a complaint was made by woman’s husband with the Punjab Chief Minister during Sangat Darshan alleging that Salwinder had physically exploited his wife and had in May 2014 demanded Rs. 50,000 as bribe for dropping a pending rape case against him (woman’s husband).
Gurdaspur Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamaljit Lamba, had on August 11 denied anticipatory bail to Salwinder Singh.
Salwinder’s counsel, Maninder Singh Bajwa, submitted before the High Court today that the complainant had made the complaint against the police officer after a delay of two years and it was a false complaint just to harass him. The court was informed that two enquiries already had been done earlier in the case wherein outcome of the first enquiry went in petitioner police officer’s favour and that of the second enquiry in alleged victim’s favour.