Assault case: Col Bath's plea for CBI probe to be taken up by new High Court Bench today

Before its scheduled hearing, Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath’s petition seeking transfer of the assault case probe to the CBI or an independent agency was delisted from the Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil.

The matter would be heard on Thursday by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar’s Bench.

The petition first came up for hearing on March 25 before Justice Moudgil’s Bench and was heard again on March 28.

It was to come up for resumed hearing on April 3, but the “cause list” or the list of cases released this evening indicated that the matter had now been placed before Justice Brar’s Bench.

The arguments in the matter were in its advanced stage, with the State being questioned on the non-arrest of the accused police officers in the case despite the registration of an attempt to murder case against them.

Among other things, Justice Moudgil’s Bench had asked the State to explain: “Whether it would be sufficient to place the accused-police officials under suspension and to transfer four inspectors out of the bounds and jurisdiction of District Police Patiala?” Justice Moudgil had asserted the action of placing under suspension the services of the police officials could be considered on the administrative side as a departmental action under the service rules.

“But, apparently after registration of the FIR nothing concrete has been done so far even by the SIT,” the court had observed. Alleging a brutal assault by Punjab Police officers and subsequent manipulation of the investigation, Colonel Bath, serving at a “sensitive post under the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India”, had stated in the petition that he and his son were “brutally” attacked on the night of March 13-14 in Patiala.

He accused four Inspector-rank Punjab Police officers and their armed subordinates of attacking them without provocation, snatching his official ID card and mobile phone, and issuing threats of fake encounters—all in public view and under CCTV surveillance.

The petitioner had submitted that the local police allegedly failed to take action despite the gravity of the offence. Distress calls to senior officials were ignored. Instead of registering an FIR on his complaint, the police lodged a bogus FIR under ‘affray’ against unknown persons based on a third-party complaint.

The officer’s family had to approach senior police officials and even the Governor of Punjab before a subsequent FIR was registered—eight days later.