‘Trying to create craters’: HC slams Chandigarh police, gives the case to CBI

Calling a fair investigation the “backbone of every criminal trial”, the judge said: “If the investigation itself is compromised, the trial before the Court loses its sanctity. The supremacy of the law is independent of the status of the accused.”

“The purpose of the investigation is to bring out the truth and not to suppress the same. The success of the Investigating Agency is in collecting the best of the evidence and presenting it before the Court — not to fabricate the evidence and submit a hopeless charge-sheet,” the court observed. “A free and fair investigation is part of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Justice Bhardwaj further stated that the court “cannot be a moot spectator” to a probe that had failed the threshold of neutrality. “This Court had entrusted the investigation out of the State of Punjab so as to ensure an impartial investigation — but the Court finds no change in the situation.”

The remarks came while hearing a fresh petition filed by Col Pushpinder Singh Bath, who was assaulted in Patiala on March 13, allegedly by five Punjab Police personnel, including four Inspectors. The FIR had initially been transferred to Chandigarh Police by a court order in April 3, after Punjab Police was accused of shielding its own men. However, in Tuesday’s order, the High Court held that UT Police had also failed to inspire confidence.

“The case in hand is a glaring example where the sentinels of the society have themselves thrown the majesty of law to the winds,” Justice Bhardwaj said.

Sharp courtroom exchanges preceded the verdict. Appearing for the victim, advocate PS Ahluwalia, assisted by Deepinder Singh Virk, accused the authorities of “orchestrating the investigation to dismantle the case” and “betraying the court’s trust” by walking back on their own earlier stand.

“The same influence is operating here as in Punjab. This is not an investigation — it is record manipulation on affidavit,” Ahluwalia submitted.

At the centre of the courtroom clash was the removal of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) from the case — a section originally relied upon by the State itself to oppose anticipatory bail for one of the accused, Inspector Ronnie Singh Salh.

“The State had earlier submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary to protect witnesses,” the counsel argued. “Now the same State is saying the offence doesn’t apply. What changed? The injuries are the same , fractures on the Colonel, broken nose on the son. But now even Section 326 is not being pressed.”

The court was reminded of its own earlier observations that the use of lathis by trained police personnel constituted use of “dangerous weapons” and attracted the grievous hurt provision.

Ahluwalia further accused the police of forging the medical records of the accused to show they had been injured earlier than the complainants. “At page 112, ‘pm’ was overwritten as ‘am’ , a forgery so crude that even a layperson can spot it,” he said.

He also pointed to the status report of the DSP which noted that the Colonel’s official ID card and phone were returned only on March 14 proving, he said, that they were snatched and not “found”, as now claimed by a new prosecution witness under Section 164 CrPC. “This is not a witness. This is a planted shield,” he said. “For the first time, I am seeing a 164 statement being used not to support the prosecution, but to undo it.”

The court questioned the pace of the investigation. “You were given four months not to sit idle. If it could be completed in one month, it should have been,” the bench told the UT counsel after being informed that the final report would be filed by August 3.

Despite dismissal of anticipatory bail for Ronnie Singh on May 23, no accused has been arrested, no non-bailable warrants issued. “They are absconding, and the police are watching,” the counsel said. “Are they waiting for a red carpet?”

Justice Bhardwaj said, “If the accused are not cooperating, NBWs must be issued. Investigation must be bold, impartial, and without fear.”

Referring to the counter-FIR (No. 65) filed by a dhaba owner, allegedly used to justify the assault , the judge remarked it appeared to have been “lodged in a premeditated manner to benefit the accused”.

The SIT has been directed to hand over the complete case records to CBI.

Advocate Akashdeep Singh accepted notice for the CBI. AAG Karunesh Kaushal, appearing for Punjab, opposed the transfer to CBI, though the state had earlier consented to the probe being moved to UT.

Justice Bhardwaj closed his order with a sharp reminder: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”