New Delhi: On August 2, the Supreme Court of India has strongly rejected the petition filed by two Punjab policemen accused of brutally assaulting an Army officer and his son in Patiala. The top court refused to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier decision, which had handed over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made it clear that the conduct of the policemen was unacceptable and said they should not misbehave with those who serve the country.
“Don’t misbehave with an Army officer who is serving the country,”
the bench told the petitioners during the hearing.
The incident happened on the night of March 13 and 14, 2025, when Army Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son Angad were having dinner at a roadside dhaba in Patiala.
A dispute broke out over parking, and following that, a group of around 12 police personnel allegedly assaulted the Colonel and his son. According to reports, the beating was so severe that the victims were left badly injured.
The Supreme Court observed,
“We owe our peaceful sleep to the tireless commitment of the Army. Any disrespect or mistreatment towards them is intolerable.”
It further stated,
“Don’t misbehave with an Army officer who is serving the country.”
In his petition, Colonel Bath submitted,
“The investigation of the instant case was transferred to the Chandigarh Police on April 3, 2025, and it is being stated with utmost disappointment that even despite lapse of more than three-and-a-half months of the registration of the FIR and lapse of three months since the investigation has been handed over to Chandigarh Police, neither a single accused has been arrested so far, nor any accused has been associated with the investigation.”
Even worse, after the physical assault, the policemen allegedly threatened to kill the Colonel in a fake encounter.
This shocking incident soon went viral across social media platforms and attracted widespread attention in the mainstream media.
Despite the serious nature of the accusations, the local police took eight days to register a First Information Report (FIR).
Eventually, 12 police officers were suspended, and an FIR was filed under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 115(2), 351(2), 109, 310, 117(1), 117(2), 126(2), and 190.
The Punjab Police had also set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter, but the progress of the investigation was extremely slow. None of the 12 accused policemen were arrested even weeks after the incident.
Feeling frustrated and disappointed by the delay in justice, Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The High Court took a serious view of the matter. It reprimanded the SIT for conducting a “lax and ineffective” investigation and raised serious questions about the deletion of the section related to attempt to murder from the charges.
The High Court then passed an order directing that the investigation be taken over by the CBI for a more independent and fair probe.
Two of the suspended policemen, Inspector Harjinder Singh Dhillon and Harry Boparai, were unhappy with the High Court’s decision.
They approached the Supreme Court challenging the order. However, the Supreme Court firmly dismissed their plea and supported the High Court’s judgment in full.
The top court bench was visibly displeased with the behaviour of the accused policemen. “Don’t misbehave with an Army officer who is serving the country,” the bench told them in open court.
It also issued a stern warning, stating that had the bench chosen to impose a penalty for their misconduct, a heavy fine would have been justified. However, the court refrained from imposing any fine at this stage.
Concluding its remarks, the bench stated,
“The Army stands for the nation. If we cannot ensure their protection, we are compromising national integrity.”
Background of the Case
The incident took place on the night of March 13 and 14, 2025, in Patiala, Punjab. Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son Angad were having dinner at a roadside dhaba (local eatery) when they got into an argument with some Punjab Police officers over parking.
According to Colonel Bath, the argument soon turned violent, and 12 policemen, including four inspectors and their armed subordinates, brutally assaulted him and his son without any provocation.
Colonel Bath alleged that the policemen also took away his official identity card and mobile phone and even threatened him with a “fake encounter.” He claimed that the entire assault took place publicly and was recorded on CCTV.
The incident gained wide attention on social media and in the news. But despite the seriousness of the matter, the local police took eight days to register a First Information Report (FIR).
On April 3, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Chandigarh Police to take over the investigation and complete it within four months. The SIT was then headed by Superintendent of Police Manjeet Sheoran.
But Colonel Bath soon returned to the High Court, stating that the Chandigarh Police had also failed to take action.
ALSO READ: Pushpa-2 Stampede Case: Court Relaxes Allu Arjun’s Bail Conditions, Permits Travel Abroad
He said that even after three-and-a-half months of the FIR being registered,
“neither a single accused has been arrested so far, nor any accused has been associated with the investigation.”
In his petition, he further argued,
“Moreover, the contention of the petitioner regarding any conscious effort on the part of the investigating agency can be cemented from the fact that no non-bailable warrant, no PO (proclaimed offender) proceeding or any other legal proceeding which would be indicative of some conscious and sincere effort, has been initiated on the part of the concerned Investigating agency.”
Due to the lack of progress and impartiality, the High Court, on July 16, 2025, transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Before the Supreme Court hearing, Colonel Bath also filed a caveat through his advocate Sumeer Sodhi, requesting that no order be passed without hearing his side.
CASE TITLE:
HARJINDER SINGH DHILLON Vs PUSHPINDER SINGH BATH
D No. 41450/2025