Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj pulls up the Chandigarh Police for ‘deliberate delay’, asks why no arrests were made despite bail plea being rejected.

ustice Bhardwaj observed that the apparent reluctance of the Union Territory Police to take effective action “defeats the very purpose” of the case having been transferred for impartial inquiry. (Source: File)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday came down heavily on the Chandigarh Police for failing to arrest any of the accused Punjab Police personnel in the March 13 assault on a serving Indian Army officer, despite anticipatory bail having been denied nearly two months ago.

Hearing a fresh petition filed by the victim, Colonel P S Bath, Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj asked, “Why have the accused not been arrested even now?” Terming the delay intentional, the judge observed that the conduct of the police was “setting the wrong example” and amounted to protecting the accused.

The court directed Manjeet Sheoran, Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to be present in person on July 16 with a detailed explanation for the continued inaction, despite the investigation having been handed over to the Chandigarh Police by a previous court order more than four months ago.

The assault and its aftermath

Col Bath, currently serving as Deputy Secretary at the Cabinet Secretariat in New Delhi, was allegedly assaulted along with his son by a group of Punjab Police officials near a dhaba on the Patiala-Samana Road on the night of March 13-14. The officer claimed he was left in a semi-conscious state, and despite multiple calls by his wife and brother-in-law to the local police and then Patiala SSP Dr Nanak Singh, no First Information Report (FIR) was initially registered.

It was only after intervention from the Governor of Punjab that an FIR (No. 69 dated March 22, 2025) was finally registered at Civil Lines Police Station, Patiala, under several serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, the officer alleged that another FIR (No. 65 dated March 15) had already been registered on the statement of the dhaba owner, possibly to pre-empt the complaint.

Following concerns about bias and procedural lapses, Col Bath had moved the high court, which on April 2 directed the transfer of the investigation to an IPS officer of the Chandigarh Police not belonging to the Punjab cadre. This came after the court expressed dissatisfaction with the initial handling of the case and the delay in FIR registration.

Despite that, the petitioner told the court on Monday, no arrests have been made, and none of the accused officials have even been associated with the investigation. The petition also highlighted that one of the key accused, Inspector Ronnie Singh, had his anticipatory bail plea dismissed on May 23, yet no coercive action had followed.

Accusations of bias and pressure

The petition accused Chandigarh Police officers of deliberately shielding the accused under pressure from senior Punjab Police officials. It claimed that efforts were being made to dilute the case and possibly drop the non-bailable offences to enable bail. “Even now, all the accused roam free in Patiala, influencing witnesses and posing a threat to the petitioner’s family,” the plea stated.

It also raised concerns about the manipulation of medical records to create a false narrative. The petitioner alleged that the medico-legal reports (MLRs) of the accused police officials showed signs of overwriting, possibly fabricated to cover up the attack. He said these documents had not been sent for forensic examination, and the doctor concerned had not been questioned.

Fake DDR, harassment, and witness intimidation

The petition went on to allege that a fake Daily Diary Report (DDR No. 58 dated March 13) was entered at PS City, Samana, to create an alibi for one of the accused, and that one Chandigarh Police officer, Inspector Gian Singh, who is part of the investigation team, has repeatedly intimidated the complainant and his son, treating them like the accused instead of victims.

The petition also pointed out that Col Bath had been summoned several times by the police, despite being the victim, while the accused officers had only been summoned once – and no further action had followed.

Link to fake encounter?

Story continues below this ad

The petition alleged that all the accused in the assault case are also named in a separate petition pending before the high court regarding a suspected fake encounter that allegedly occurred just hours before the assault on Col Bath. This, the petitioner argued, explained the Punjab Police’s interest in shielding the accused, who may otherwise face serious criminal proceedings in both cases.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the apparent reluctance of the Union Territory Police to take effective action “defeats the very purpose” of the case having been transferred for impartial inquiry. He directed that SP Manjeet Sheoran be present in court on July 16 with a personal affidavit explaining the failure to arrest the accused.