Colonel assault case: Punjab and Haryana HC questions delay in FIR, seeks answers from Punjab government

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath against the State of Punjab and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petition sought the transfer of FIR No. 69, dated March 22, 2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, to the CBI or any independent agency to ensure a free, fair, and impartial investigation.

The court asked why the Punjab Police were willing to register an FIR based on the complaint of the dhaba owner but refused to heed the complaint filed by the colonel’s wife.

Justice Moudgil also rebuked the police’s handling of the case, stating, “If your clients were so honest and dedicated, they should have booked them, taken them for medical. Instead, they fled from the spot and spent three days apologising.”

Justice Moudgil reviewed video footage and medical reports related to a late-night altercation that took place on March 13–14. The petitioners, the colonel and his son, alleged they were assaulted by the police, left to recover briefly as the police officials drank water, and then assaulted again by the same individuals. CCTV evidence from a roadside dhaba reportedly shows the assault.

Advocate Vinod Ghai, a former advocate general of Punjab, intervened on behalf of Constable Randhir Singh, who he claimed had suffered injuries during the brawl on the fateful night. He claimed that a medical report conducted in the wee hours of March 14 showed that he had suffered wounds on his body.

Colonel Bath’s lawyer claimed that the colonel showed the police his service ID while he was being beaten up but one of the policemen snatched it from him and allegedly said, “We have just returned from an encounter, if you survive this, you can collect your ID from the ACP Civil Lines”.

He further alleged that the police took away the colonel’s phone and service ID during the brawl in which the colonel suffered a dislocated arm while his son’s nose was fractured. The petitioner said the colonel pleaded that his phone be returned as he was serving on a very sensitive post in the Cabinet secretariat but to no avail.

The petitioner further claimed that the IAS officer first appointed to investigate the case lacked the authority to adequately address the criminal aspects of the case under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Colonel Bath prayed for the court to probe the role of senior Punjab Police officers in the delayed registration of the FIR, alleging that the delay was aimed at shielding the accused, suppressing the matter, and destroying crucial evidence. Additionally, he sought the preservation of relevant CCTV footage and mobile tower locations linked to the case.

Expressing concerns about threats to his life and that of his family and eyewitnesses, the petitioner urged the court to ensure their protection. He also sought an exemption from filing certified or true-typed copies of annexures in the interest of justice. Until the final disposal of the petition, he requested a stay on the ongoing investigation by the Punjab Police.

The court took note of the footage presented by the petitioner, which had been retrieved from the dhaba and submitted as part of the case record. The petitioner lamented that the police had failed to seize this footage during the investigation.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the state of Punjab to file a detailed affidavit within two days, listing the matter for a hearing on March 28. The court also issued notice to the CBI.

Justice Moudgil also ordered the submission of CCTV footage from the dhaba and asked the state to clarify:

— Which officer was informed about the incident but refused to act?

— Why was the FIR delayed despite medico-legal reports showing injuries to both the petitioners and the two police personnel, Constable Randhir Singh and Inspector Ronnie?

— Why was no alcohol test conducted on the accused? If conducted, why was the report not submitted?

At this point, the petitioners’ counsel intervened, stating that medical reports confirmed the colonel and his son were not under the influence of alcohol.