Introduction:

In a significant development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an explanation from the Punjab Government regarding the delay in registering a First Information Report (FIR) against Punjab Police officials allegedly involved in the assault of Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, an Army officer currently posted at the Army headquarters in New Delhi. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, presiding over the matter, issued notices to both the State and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations leveled against senior police officials.

Background of the Incident:

According to Colonel Bath’s petition, on the night of March 13, he and his son, Angad Singh Bath, were allegedly attacked without provocation by four Inspector-rank officers of the Punjab Police and their armed subordinates. The assault reportedly occurred near a roadside eatery close to Government Rajindra Hospital in Patiala. Despite the gravity of the incident, local police allegedly failed to take immediate action. Distress calls made to senior officials were purportedly ignored, and instead of registering an FIR based on Colonel Bath’s statement, a separate FIR under charges of ‘affray against unknown persons’ was filed based on the complaint of an unrelated third party. It was only after persistent efforts, including approaching senior police officers and the Governor of Punjab, that a proper FIR was registered eight days later.

Court’s Observations and Directives:

Justice Moudgil expressed strong reservations about the conduct of the Punjab Police in this matter, questioning the seven-day delay in registering the FIR. The court demanded a comprehensive status report, seeking details such as:

• The names of officers who were informed about the incident but refused to register the FIR.
• Reasons for the delay in filing the FIR despite the availability of medical reports for Colonel Bath and his son.
• Clarification on whether the medico-legal reports of the police officials allegedly injured in the incident were provided to the concerned officers for lodging the FIR.
• Information on whether medical alcohol tests were conducted on the police officers involved, and if so, the results should be presented.
• The court has granted the State two days to respond to these queries and to explain why the petition seeking the transfer of the investigation to the CBI should not be dismissed.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Colonel Bath’s counsel argued that the assault was unprovoked and highlighted the alleged inaction and bias of the local police. The petition emphasized the conflict of interest and the need for an impartial investigation, citing the involvement of senior police officials in the alleged assault. The petitioner seeks the transfer of the probe to a central agency like the CBI to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation. citeturn0search6

State’s Position:

As of now, the State has not publicly detailed its position regarding the delay in registering the FIR or the allegations made by Colonel Bath. The High Court’s directive mandates the State to provide a detailed affidavit addressing these concerns within the stipulated two-day period.

Current Status and Next Steps:

The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for March 28, by which time the Punjab Government is expected to file its response. The court’s insistence on a prompt and detailed explanation underscores the gravity of the allegations and the importance of accountability within law enforcement agencies. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for police conduct and the handling of complaints against law enforcement officials in the region.