CHANDIGARH: Former Punjab Police chief, K.P.S. Gill denied all rations leveled against him by senior Punjab woman IAS officer ‘Rupan Deol Bajaj about Gill allegedly outraging her modesty at a Private dinner party here eight years ago. He said that it was a false case “fabricated against him due to his failure and refusal to help the Bajaj couple in the CBI proceedings against B.R. Bajaj.

He further stated that even J.F. Ribeiro, the then security adviser to the Punjab Governor, had acted in an “over zealous” manner and denied Thieving gone to the office to apologize to Rupan, when he was summoned to do so. Gill also rebutted a part of the testimony given by former Punjab Governor S.S. Ray that he had promised to give up attending evening parties and apologize to Rupan Bajaj and her husband, He told the court that during his meeting with the then Governor, he had denied all the allegations leveled by Rupan. He further said that told the Governor his version of the alleged incident.

Y Gill denied the entire version of the prosecution, regarding hitting the posterior of Rupan Bajaj and intentionally outraging her modesty at private dinner party on the evening of July 18, 1988, hosted by the then ‘Financial Commissioner (Home) S.L. Kapur. He described the prosecution story to be totally false and denied any confrontation with Rupan at the party in a state of ‘inebriation.’ The journalists were intrigued by his presence as he would often look at Rupan with a smile lurking around his mouth and would in turn look at the journalists also.

Defense counsel Aloke Sengupta and Balram Singh, later moved an application on behalf of Gill seeking further extension for delivering the judgment, as Gill being the president of the Indian Hockey Federation.

(THE) had to accompany the team to the Olympics at Aulanta in the USA ‘from July 17 to August4 this year. The CJM while denying to seek any further extension told the defence counsel to file a petition for further extension in the Supreme Court as he has already sought two extension as the trail of the case could not be completed within the stipulated six months specified by the Apex Court. The present extension of three months would also expire on July 27.

Article extracted from this publication >>  July 3, 1996