Shimla police refutes ‘five transfers’ claim; Gudiya case witness maintains victimisation charge
Shimla, July 31,
The controversy surrounding the suspension of Constable Dinesh Kumar, a key prosecution witness in the 2017 Gudiya custodial death case, intensified on Friday after the Shimla Police issued a fresh clarification rebutting reports that the constable had been transferred five times within a month and a half.
In a statement, Superintendent of Police (Shimla) Gaurav Singh said certain social media platforms and sections of the media had circulated “unverified and factually incorrect” reports regarding Dinesh Kumar’s postings.
According to the police, Dinesh Kumar was not subjected to multiple transfers. Instead, he was assigned temporary duty from Police Station Chaupal to Police Station Nankhari, where he joined on June 21, 2026. Subsequently, on his own request and at his desired place of posting, he was posted as Naib Court at Theog, where he assumed charge on July 17, 2026.
The police further clarified that during his suspension, Nankhari was merely designated as his headquarters in accordance with service rules and that fixing headquarters during suspension does not amount to a transfer. It described the family’s claim that he had been transferred five times within six weeks as “completely false, baseless and factually incorrect.”
The latest clarification supplements the department’s earlier stand that Dinesh Kumar was suspended for repeated indiscipline, failure to comply with deployment orders on time and attempts to influence his posting by making contradictory representations before different authorities. A regular departmental inquiry is presently underway.
Dinesh Kumar, however, has rejected the police version, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings are retaliatory. He maintains that he has been victimised for truthfully deposing before the CBI and the trial court in the Gudiya custodial death case. His testimony forms part of the prosecution case against several Himachal Pradesh Police personnel accused in the custodial death of Suraj Singh during the investigation into the Gudiya rape and murder case.
While the police maintains that the disciplinary action relates solely to service conduct and bears no connection with the Gudiya case, Dinesh Kumar and his family continue to allege that the action is linked to his role as a prosecution witness. The departmental inquiry is expected to determine the service-related allegations independently.
The controversy has once again revived public discussion. The force had earlier faced intense scrutiny over its handling of the Gudiya rape and murder investigation during the previous Virbhadra Singh government and, more recently, the investigation into the death of HPPCL Chief Engineer Vimal Negi. In both cases, the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed that the investigations be entrusted to the CBI, reflecting the need for an independent probe and raising questions over the handling of the investigations by the state police.
Despite these controversies, the Himachal Pradesh Police continues to enjoy a reputation as one of the country’s disciplined state police forces. However, recent developments—including court proceedings involving senior police officers, internal disciplinary actions and the suspension of Dinesh Kumar—have fuelled public perception of growing strains within sections of the force. Though no official finding has established institutional discord, the developments have drawn considerable public attention and debate.
With the Home Department under Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, the latest controversy is likely to add to the government’s responsibility of reinforcing public confidence in the police. Observers say ensuring that disciplinary proceedings remain transparent, impartial and free from any perception of bias will be crucial in restoring confidence, particularly at a time when the force is facing heightened public scrutiny.
About the Author
