On Tuesday, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana said it appears attempts were being made to protect police officials accused of assaulting an army colonel & his son earlier this month, directing the Punjab government to file a detailed reply by March 28, asking it to explain the delay in registration of an FIR against the accused cops.

The plea of Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath — who has accused 12 Punjab Police personnel of assaulting him & his son Angad on March 13 over a parking dispute in Patiala — seeking transfer of probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another independent agency was taken up by the bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil, which questioned the police on procedural lapses reported in the case.

“This court would not shy of taking note here that such lapses, if substantiated, do erase the faith of citizens in the law enforcing agency & the governance of state entrusted with maintaining law & order,” it observed.

The Govt has been asked to tell the court about the name of the officer who was informed by the petitioner regarding the incident, & reasons for the officer’s refusal to take action.

Further, an explanation has been sought for the delay in registering the FIR, despite the availability of medico-legal reports of the victims & statement made on March 14 by the petitioner to the police as well as “comprehensive text message” to Patiala senior superintendent of police Nanak Singh. A report has also been sought about the assault incident, captured on the CCTV.

During the hearing, colonel’s counsels Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia & Deepinder Singh Virk showed videos to the bench, including one in which some policemen are purportedly admitting their mistake & apologising to Jasvinder Kaur, the wife of the army officer.

In his petition, Colonel Bath alleged he & his son were “brutally” attacked by four inspector-rank officials of Punjab Police & their armed subordinates, who snatched his ID card & mobile phone & threatened him with a “fake encounter” over a parking dispute outside an eatery in Patiala.

The plea alleged the colonel’s wife was pressured by the policemen to strike a compromise & claimed that some personnel admitted to her over a video call that they were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.

Despite the petitioner & his family being the first ones to report the incident, the first FIR was registered on March 14 on the basis of the statement of the eatery owner & on March 22, a fresh FIR was lodged based on the colonel’s statement.

Police admit to lapses

During the hearing, the Punjab government counsel admitted to lapses in the registration of the FIR & submitted that now an FIR stands registered & the special investigation team (SIT) is constituted to be headed SPS Parmar, additional director general of police, Punjab.

The court said despite medical examination of the petitioner & his son & complaint made by the petitioner on March 14, initial FIR was filed on the complaint of the dhaba owner, which is nothing less than “an attempt to protect the police officials”. It also questioned why the dhaba owner is silent about the conduct of the police officials & even about their presence at the spot of alleged incident.

“This court has deep concern regarding procedural fairness & preservation of material evidence such as non-preservation of CCTV footage from the said place of occurrence, not registering the FIR immediately at the first instance despite medico legal reports & more than 20 calls made to the police authorities immediately thereafter at the behest of petitioner or his wife,” it remarked.

“.. all investigations especially those involving incidental accountability & alleged mis-conduct, adhere strictly to establish legal standards & principles which is prima facie found missing in the circumstances of the case in hand, wherein senior army official is meted out with a treatment at the hands of state police in a manner, which calls for exhaustive deliberation, it said adding that such an “act” cannot be accepted. 

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source Link

Picture Source :