Colonel assault case: HC flays affidavit filed by Patiala SSP, asks why accused were not arrested

Col Pushpinder Singh Bath currently posted at the Army headquarters in Delhi, had alleged that the police personnel, including four Inspector-rank officers, attacked him and his son without any provocation. Earlier this week, he approached the high court seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the incident.

The Colonel’s plea stated that he and son Angad Singh Bath were assaulted, left to recover as the police officials drank water, and were then assaulted again. The Colonel allegedly suffered a dislocated arm while his son’s nose was fractured. CCTV evidence from the roadside dhaba reportedly shows the assault.

When the Punjab state counsel submitted that the court should give the Special Investigation Team (SIT) time to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and that he did not want the case to go off “on a slight tangent”, pitting one uniformed force against the other, Justice Moudgil said, “What you will do in the future is not a concern at all. We have to find out whether the allegations made by the petitioner are true.” He said the crux of the case was the petitioner’s loss of trust and faith in the Punjab Police.

The state counsel reminded the court that a senior Army officer of the rank of Major General and a top police officer (Punjab DGP) had addressed a joint press conference to keep the issue from becoming a police-versus-Army issue. To this, Justice Moudgil remarked, “In how many (such) cases…are the accused within your reach not arrested? They (the accused) are not being punished. By suspending them, you are not obliging anybody.”

The judge sought clarity on the timing of a text message sent by the petitioner’s wife to the SSP. The message was evidently sent at 9.48 am on March 14, but the SSP’s affidavit stated that it was received at noon. This confusion was later cleared by the state counsel. The judge also asked the state counsel to clarify when the accused were identified.

Advocate P S Ahluwalia, representing the Colonel, divulged that SSP Singh had first called a relative of Col Bath at 7.30 am on March 14 following the intervention of senior police officer Gurtej Singh and he had spoken to the petitioner and his wife. “Why did the SSP not disclose this information?,” Justice Moudgil asked while directing Ahluwalia to put this on an affidavit.

The delay in registering the DDR was another issue. The court asked why it was recorded only at 12.53 pm on March 14 when the initial complaint was made much earlier. “There is a delay in lodging the DDR, in filing the FIR, and in arresting the accused. Now you are asking for two more weeks?,” Justice Moudgil asked the state counsel.

When the counsel submitted that the district police were under tremendous pressure as they were on high alert due to the buildup of farmers at the Shambhu and Khanauri borders between March 18 and 20, Justice Moudgil asked whether he meant to say that no FIRs were registered in the district during this period.

The court also inquired whether the police tested the CCTV footage obtained from a roadside eatery.

Advocate Ahluwalia, representing the petitioner, argued that the local police had failed to act decisively from the outset, and insisted on a CBI probe. He alleged that the SSP’s affidavit contained perjury. “When direct allegations are made against police officers, an independent probe is necessary,” he submitted.

The court also questioned the police’s approach in handling the accused. “Have they been arrested before interrogating the petitioner? You served the petitioner a notice, and he responded. Why is he being called again? What are you trying to indicate? You are only trying to buy time,” Justice Moudgil remarked.

Further, the court sought an affidavit detailing why police officers were present at the location of the assault and whether they were on duty at the time. It also sought details of all FIRs registered in Patiala district between March 18 and 20, when police were on high alert due to the farmers’ protest.

The hearing was adjourned until next Thursday.