Param Bir Singh’s Reply Affidavit Cannot Be Taken on Record: Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, Appearing for Former ACP Bhimraj Ghadge, Cites Binding Judgments of the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court
Serious Questions Raised Over Disputed Signatures and CCTV Footage Near Notary’s Office; Allegation That ACP Ghadge Is a ‘Stooge’ of Anil Deshmukh Also Strongly Contested
Mumbai, October 17, 2026: The Special NIA Court in Mumbai today heard detailed arguments in proceedings initiated by former Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Bhimraj Ghadge against former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh over allegations of filing a false affidavit before the court.
The petition seeks legal action against Param Bir Singh, including the issuance of an arrest warrant in connection with the allegedly false affidavit. After hearing detailed submissions, the Special NIA Court reserved its order.
Earlier, the Special NIA Court had initiated inquiry proceedings concerning the allegations of a false affidavit and issued notice to the concerned notary, directing preservation of relevant records and CCTV footage.
During today’s hearing, Param Bir Singh filed his reply affidavit opposing the proceedings.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha Argues for Nearly an Hour; Challenges Maintainability of Param Bir Singh’s Reply Affidavit
Appearing on behalf of former ACP Bhimraj Ghadge, Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha advanced detailed legal arguments for approximately one hour.
Relying upon judgments of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court, Advocate Ojha submitted that proceedings concerning the alleged fabrication of evidence and filing of a false affidavit involve offences against the administration of justice.
He argued that, at the preliminary inquiry stage, a prospective accused does not possess an automatic right to intervene, file a reply affidavit, or insist upon being heard.
Accordingly, he submitted that Param Bir Singh’s reply affidavit should not be accepted on record or taken into consideration while deciding the application.
According to the applicant’s side, the Court considered these submissions and, after hearing the arguments, reserved its order.
Two Allegedly False Statements in Param Bir Singh’s Affidavit Highlighted Before the Court
During the hearing, the advocates appearing for ACP Bhimraj Ghadge raised serious questions concerning two statements allegedly made by Param Bir Singh.
First Allegation: Disputed Signatures and Absence from CCTV Footage Near the Notary’s Office
The applicant’s advocates submitted that Param Bir Singh had claimed that the signatures appearing on the affidavit belonged to him.
However, they contended that CCTV footage obtained from the vicinity of the concerned notary’s office did not show Param Bir Singh visiting or being present at the relevant location.
It was further alleged that the two signatures appearing on the affidavit did not match, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the document and the circumstances in which it was notarised.
The advocates submitted that these discrepancies warranted a thorough inquiry into the genuineness of the signatures, the notarial records, and whether Param Bir Singh had personally appeared before the notary.
Second Allegation: Param Bir Singh’s Claim That ACP Ghadge Is a ‘Stooge’ of Anil Deshmukh Strongly Disputed
The applicant’s advocates also challenged Param Bir Singh’s allegation describing former ACP Bhimraj Ghadge as a “stooge” of former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.
They submitted that the allegation was factually incorrect and intended to undermine Ghadge’s credibility.
According to the submissions, ACP Ghadge himself is a witness in proceedings against Anil Deshmukh. Therefore, describing him as Deshmukh’s stooge was alleged to be misleading and contrary to the record.
The advocates further pointed out that ACP Ghadge is also a witness in connection with the CBI investigation into the Disha Salian case.
Reference was also made to the recently filed ₹2,000 crore defamation suit by Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, arising from controversies connected with the case.
Sachin Waze and Other Accused Present in Court
Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha, Advocate Tanveer Nizam, Advocate Abhishek Mishra, Advocate Anushka Sonawane, Advocate Devkrishna Bhambri, Advocate Shivam Gupta, Advocate Ayush Tiwari, Advocate Payal Padvale and other advocates appeared during today’s proceedings.
Former police officer Sachin Waze and other accused persons were also present in court.
The applicant’s advocates urged the Court to take appropriate legal action in accordance with law concerning the allegations of false evidence and a fabricated affidavit, emphasising the importance of protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings.
All Eyes on NIA Court’s Reserved Order
The forthcoming order is expected to address the objections raised against the consideration of Param Bir Singh’s reply affidavit and the further course of proceedings concerning the allegations of false statements, disputed signatures, and improper notarisation.
The Court has reserved its order.
