In a scathing order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court slammed the ‘non-action of the senior officers to ensure an FIR was registered without delay’.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Ronnie Singh Salh, a police officer accused of brutally assaulting Army Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son Angad Singh, calling the act a “heinous” and “vile” abuse of power that struck at the very foundation of civilised policing in a democracy.
Justice Anoop Chitkara, who presided over the case, tore into the conduct of the accused, terming it a “gross misuse of police authority” and a display of “inhumane, aggressive and arrogant” behaviour unbefitting the uniform.
The alleged incident occurred on the intervening night of March 13-14 near Rajindra Hospital in Patiala, when Colonel Bath, his son, and a friend had stopped to eat noodles from the trunk of their car. A Scorpio fitted with blinking red and blue lights arrived, and seven to eight men in civilian clothes got out, allegedly demanding that the Colonel move his vehicle. What followed, as per the FIR, was a sudden and violent assault in which Colonel Bath was punched unconscious and then beaten with fists and sticks—even after he identified himself as an Army officer.The attack left both father and son grievously injured, including bone fractures, as confirmed by medical records from Rajindra Hospital. Salh was among those named in the FIR, which was registered on March 22—eight days after the incident, and only following public outrage.
The case was later handed over to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a Chandigarh UT cadre IPS officer, after the high court on April 3 expressed concern over the integrity of the initial probe.
In his strongly worded order, Justice Chitkara said the police’s actions were indefensible. “Even if it is hypothetically assumed that the victims had wrongfully parked their car, the job of a law enforcement officer is to issue a challan,” he wrote. “It is not the job of any trained law enforcer, skilled in the efficient use of force continuum, to mete out unmerciful, furious beatings to a common man at the drop of a hat,” he added.
“The callous and violent way in which these police officers are seen to be beating those two people visibly demonstrates an inhumane, aggressive and arrogant attitude of a cruel mindset. This vile, uncivilised, pitiless and brutal way is not how a police force ought to behave—especially in a democratic country like ours,” he further said.
Justice Chitkara did not spare senior officers either. “If it was the assault alone which was the problem, the gravity of the issue would have been different. What makes the entire episode even more worrisome is the non-action of the senior officers to ensure an FIR was registered without delay,” he said, calling it “alarming and disheartening” that no prompt action was taken despite the gravity of the incident. The FIR, the court noted, was lodged only after “public furore”.
The judge also flagged what he called an attempt to fabricate evidence. “Another perturbing aspect is that the accused attempted to fabricate evidence by getting treated in a private hospital. Such deviously crafty behaviour portrays an assumption of possessing unfettered powers—as if such officers are emperors of their police jurisdiction, which can never be the intent of legislature,” he said.
The court was also disturbed by the alleged assault on a serving Army officer. “Despite knowing from his identity card that he was a Colonel in the Army, the accused showed zero signs of stopping, snatched his ID, intimidated him, threatened his life and continued to beat him unsparingly,” the court said.
Taking a wider view, the court remarked: “If police officers display such brutality, high-handedness and disrespect towards members of our esteemed defence services, such reprehensible conduct is not just against the individual but against the whole nation. It implies they would be happy to serve any ruler—defying the very spirit of democracy that empowers them.”
Justice Chitkara stressed that “cruelty” must weigh heavily in bail decisions. “A cruel person amok is a potential threat to the well-being, safety and security of those around, much like a landmine waiting to explode on the slightest pressure,” he said.
Finding the petitioner’s involvement prima facie established and the brutality of the act incompatible with pre-arrest bail, the court dismissed the petition. The order said further comments were withheld to avoid prejudice to the trial. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Subscribe to receive the day’s headlines from The Indian Express straight in your inbox
The SIT investigation continues and has been directed to conclude within four months.
