Chandigarh:
Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday directed the Punjab government to file a detailed reply by March 28, asking it to explain the delay in the registration of an FIR in the army colonel assault case.
The high court asked the government to name the officer who was informed by the petitioner about the incident and the reasons for the officer’s refusal to take action and register an FIR.
“An explanation for the delay in registering the FIR, despite the availability of medico-legal reports on record, along with detailed statement of the petitioner dated March 14, 2025, as well as comprehensive text message to Nanak Singh, senior superintendent of police, Patiala…,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil said and directed the Punjab government to file a detailed reply by Friday, the next date of hearing.
Colonel Bath, who has accused 12 Punjab Police personnel of assaulting him and his son over a parking dispute, on Monday filed a plea in the high court, seeking transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another independent agency.
The Punjab Police lodged a fresh FIR based on Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath’s statement a week after the alleged incident.
An army officer serving in a “sensitive post under the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India”, Colonel Bath alleged in his petition that he and his son were “brutally” attacked on the intervening night of March 13 and 14 in Patiala.
He alleged that the assailants — four inspector-rank officers of the Punjab Police and their armed subordinates — attacked him and his son without provocation, snatched his ID card and mobile phone, and threatened him with a “fake encounter” — all in public view and under CCTV camera coverage.
Colonel Bath has further claimed in the plea that a fair investigation was impossible under the Punjab Police.
It was asserted on behalf of the petitioner before the high court that the Punjab Police officers were made aware of the fact that Colonel Bath was on deputation from the army to a sensitive post under the government of India and there was the risk of sensitive information of national importance contained in his mobile phone being leaked.
The valid service ID of the petitioner and his mobile phone were later returned to him.
The court, after going through Colonel Bath’s statement, said it could gather that the allegations, including the threat of the petitioner’s elimination in a fake encounter, were serious in nature.
Meanwhile, the state counsel sought time to seek instructions on naming the police officer who was called about the incident and taking action.
The high court expressed dismay and shock that an FIR was registered on March 15 based on the statement of the dhaba owner against the petitioner and his son and called it nothing less than an attempt to protect the police officers.
Based on the admission of the state counsel, the high court noted that there was a delay of eight days in lodging an FIR.
It observed, “…this court would not shy of taking note here that such lapses, if substantiated, do erase the faith of citizens in the law enforcing agency and the governance of state entrusted with maintaining law and order.” “It is imperative that all investigations, especially those involving incidental accountability and alleged misconduct, adhere strictly to establish legal standards and principles which is prima facie found missing in the circumstances of the case in hand, wherein senior army official is meted out with a treatment at the hands of state police in a manner, which calls for exhaustive deliberation,” the high court said.
“Such act on the part of force of any state government cannot be accepted by this court, which is expected not to act with violence and with such a gravity against its citizens and thereafter going more worse in not taking action immediately once the matter was reported even to the highest officer of the district ie, senior superintendent of police, Patiala,” it added.
According to Colonel Bath’s petition, the local police failed to take action despite the seriousness of the offence.
“Distress calls made to senior officials were ignored and, instead of registering an FIR based on the petitioner’s statement, a bogus FIR under ‘affray’ against unknown persons was filed on the complaint of an unrelated third party,” according to his petition.
It also alleged that Colonel Bath’s family had to approach senior police officers and the Punjab governor before a “proper subsequent FIR” was filed only after eight days”.
“…Given the clear conflict of interest, delay, manipulation and bias, a fair and impartial investigation is impossible under the Punjab Police…,” the petitioner submitted.
Colonel Bath further submitted in his petition that the investigation might be transferred to the CBI or another independent agency “to prevent miscarriage of justice, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the rule of law”.
His family members have alleged that police in plainclothes asked him to move his car so that they could park theirs. When the colonel objected to their tone, they thrashed him and his son.
The colonel suffered a broken arm and his son a cut on his head.
Last week, the Punjab Police lodged a fresh FIR based on Colonel Bath’s statement. The matter is now subject to a probe by a special investigation team.
All 12 personnel have been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings initiated against them, the Punjab Police earlier said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Hindkesharistaff and is published from a syndicated feed.)