Chandigarh Police to investigate Col Bath assault case; Punjab Police excluded from inquiry

Acting on Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath’s petition seeking transfer of the assault case probe to the CBI or an independent agency, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday handed over the investigation to the Chandigarh Police.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar made it clear in the open court that an officer from the Punjab Police cadre would not be involved in the investigation.

The court, at the onset asked, the State of Punjab to specify whether it wanted a consent-based order or one on merit.

The Bench also asked it to specify whether handing over the probe to the Chandigarh Police was acceptable before the order was passed.

The State of Punjab was represented by senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai.

The case was initially placed before Sandeep Moudgil’s Bench, which had questioned the State on the non-arrest of the accused police officers despite the registration of an attempt to murder case against them.

Justice Moudgil’s Bench had also asked the State to explain: “Whether it would be suffice 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 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.