HC rejects anticipatory bail petition of cop in Colonel assault case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of police officer Ronnie Singh Salh, one of the cops who had allegedly assaulted a Colonel and his son over two months ago in Patiala.
The alleged incident had taken place on March 13 night in Patiala, where Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son were allegedly assaulted by police personnel over a parking dispute.
Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted that the incident showed a “complete misuse of police power” by the officers.
The admonition came as Justice Chitkara called for a thorough investigation into the delay in the registration of an FIR on the victim’s plea and other aspects, while referring to inaction on senior police officers’ part for bringing the “perpetrators to justice”.
Justice Chitkara observed that two FIRs were registered – first for affray based on a complaint made by owner of a dhaba, where the incident took place, and the subsequent one on the army officer’s plea.
A fundamental aspect which must be thoroughly investigated by a senior level police officer and certainly not less than of the Senior Superintendent of Police is the manner in which was registered based on the dhaba owner’s complaint and non-registration of earlier on the army officer’s plea “despite involving a grievous injury and a complaint about causing assault”.
“It is astonishing that the police immediately registered an FIR on finding an offence of affray. However, despite the earlier DDR disclosing injuries and fractures… no FIR was registered until March 22,” the court observed, terming the delay disturbing and suggestive of bias.
Justice Chitkara asserted the callous and violent way in which police officers were seen to be beating the two “clearly demonstrates an inhumane, aggressive and arrogant attitude of a cruel mindset, which is uncharacteristic of what our respectable and valiant police force actually represents. This vile, uncivilised, pitiless and brutal way is not the manner in which a police force ought to behave with its people, anywhere, and especially, in a democratic country like ours”.
Justice Chitkara added the police are meant to uphold law and order with fairness, not instill fear through unwarranted force. “It is common knowledge that the majority of the people, especially the poor, downtrodden and illiterate have been deeply conditioned to be afraid of the police, harboring a fear of them in the hearts of hearts. It is behaviour like that – as seen in the present case exhibited by a thin minority of officials – which inspires such fear and terror and is exemplary of incidents fuelling such narratives”.
The court added that the most disturbing part was that the accused police officers, fully aware of their duties and even after learning that the victim was a serving Colonel, showed no restraint. They snatched his ID, threatened his life and brutally beat him.
“We must not forget so early that this region is closer to a hostile border, has a history of militancy and is still battling cross-border narco-terrorism,” the Bench observed.
Holding that there appeared to be an intentional effort to scare away the visitors who could have acted as “independent witnesses” and assault the complainants in isolation, Justice Chitkara asserted: “Even if it is hypothetically assumed that the victims had wrongfully parked their car… still the job of a law enforcement officer is to issue a challan. It is not the job of any trained and licensed law enforcement officer to physically manhandle the occupants of the vehicle, let alone beat them black and blue.”
