“The court is convinced that the investigating agency is not only trying to create loopholes in the investigation but trying to make craters in the investigation so as to ensure that once the chargesheet is filed before the court, the case of the prosecution should hardly be able to crawl in court.” ~HC
In a strongly worded order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has transferred the investigation into the alleged assault on Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by the Chandigarh Police conducted a “tainted” probe and acted in a manner intended to shield the accused Punjab Police officials.
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, while issuing the order on July 16, concluded that the SIT had not merely faltered in conducting a fair investigation, but had actively undermined the process to benefit the accused. “There are no prospects of free and fair investigation in the case by SIT of UT, Chandigarh,” the court observed. “The court cannot be a spectator to the investigating agency conducting the probe in a tainted manner”, added the Court.
The case arose from a incident in Patiala, where Colonel Bath, then posted at Army Headquarters in New Delhi, and his son were allegedly assaulted outside a roadside eatery by four inspectors of the Punjab Police and their armed subordinates. According to the Colonel, the assault was unprovoked and resulted in multiple injuries, including a fractured arm and head injuries.
Initial reluctance to act on the Colonel's complaint and subsequent procedural irregularities led the High Court, to shift the investigation from Punjab Police to a new SIT under the Chandigarh Police, led by SP Manjeet Sheoran of the AGMUT cadre. The SIT was given four months to complete the probe.
However, as the case progressed, multiple concerns emerged over the neutrality and effectiveness of the SIT. These included the unexplained removal of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), failure to arrest any of the named accused despite denial of anticipatory bail, and allegations of manipulated medical records.
The Court was particularly troubled by the SIT’s decision to remove Section 307 IPC based on a medical opinion, despite earlier reliance on the same provision by the State itself to oppose bail. “Without concluding the investigation, the probe agency has made up its mind to delete the offence under Section 109 BNS, which substantiates the apprehension of the petitioner that the SIT is proceeding in a tainted manner to give benefit to the accused,” Justice Bhardwaj observed.
In a rare judicial indictment of an ongoing investigation, the Court noted, “Except for saying the investigation is in progress, there is no material to convince the court that the probe is being carried out in a free and fair manner.”
“Needless to say, other offences in the FIR are also non-bailable, but the investigating agency has no answer regarding its conduct in not proceeding against the accused. The only answer given to the court is that all the accused are not traceable”, added the Court.
Despite dismissal of anticipatory bail on May 23, no non-bailable warrants had been issued, and none of the accused officers had been taken into custody. The Court questioned the absence of any coercive action and observed that the accused, all serving police officers, were not cooperating with the investigation and remained absent from duty.
Colonel Bath, in his fresh petition, alleged deliberate inaction and complicity by the SIT. His counsel argued that the investigation was being orchestrated to dismantle the case, citing the removal of key IPC sections and the disappearance of CCTV footage from the site of the incident. The counsel further pointed to the fabrication of a witness statement under Section 164 CrPC, intended to neutralize evidence of the Colonel’s ID and phone being taken during the incident, items later recovered from police possession.
The Court also acknowledged that statements of material witnesses, including the Colonel’s wife and brother-in-law, had not been recorded despite repeated requests. The petition described the conduct of the police as an attempt to “shield serving officers from legal accountability.”
In view of the court’s direction having failed to result in a satisfactory probe, the High Court concluded that no purpose would be served by continuing with the present investigating agency. The matter was accordingly handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Picture Source :
