Army Colonel Assault Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks Punjab Govt's Explanation for FIR Delay:

On Tuesday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court instructed the Punjab government to submit a comprehensive response by March 28 regarding the rationale behind the postponement of the FIR's registration in the army colonel assault case. According to Collin, the high court wanted the government to state who the officer informed by the petitioner about the affair was, as well as the reasons for the officer’s inaction regarding the FIR registration. As Justice Sandeep Moudgil put it, “An explanation for the delay in registering the FIR, despite the availability of medico-legal reports on record, along with detailed statement of the petitioner dated March 14, 2025, as well as comprehensive text message to Nanak Singh, senior superintendent of police, Patiala…,” With that, the Punjab government was told to reply by the next hearing date, which is Friday. Bath, the plaintiff in the case, accused 12 Punjab policemen of beating him and his son up for a mere reserving a parking spot. Last Monday, he moved to the high court to seek a directive to have the investigation transferred to the CBI or another autonomous body. A week after the reported incident, Punjab police registered a new FIR based on details given by Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath.

An Army officer working in “sensitive post under the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India” and Colonel Bath, made a petition that accused him and his son of being “brutally” attacked in Patiala during the night of March 13 and 14.

He stated that the attackers, which consisted of four inspector rank officers of the Punjab police alongside their armed subordinates, allegedly assaulted him and his son without any provocation, drew his ID card and cell phone and threatened him with a “fake encounter,” all doing so in public view and under CCTV surveillance.

Bath has further claimed in the plea that under the Punjab police, there was no possibility of a fair investigation being conducted.

It was stated on behalf of the petitioner before the high court that the Colonel Bath as on deputation from the army to a sensitive post under the Government of India and the officers were aware of this. There was also medication that his mobile phone contained sensitive national security information which was highly likely to get leaked.

Later on, the petitioner was given back his valid service ID and mobile phone.

The court said all it could tell from Colonel Bath's statement is that, the allegations to include the threat of the petitioner’s elimination in a staged encounter seemed to be grave in nature.

In the meantime, the state counsel asked for a delay in order to give instructions regarding the naming of the police officer who was involved in the calling concerning the incident and whom action was to be taken.

The high court could not fathom that an FIR was made on March 15 from the statement from the dhaba owner against the petitioner and his son, and termed it disheartening and shocking, and called it nothing but an effort to cover for the police officers.

By that admission of the state counsel, the high court said, it is clear there was an undue delay in the lodging of the FIR amounting to eight days.

The magistrate went on to say that “such lapses, if proven, do shatter a citizen’s trust on the law enforcement and governance of the state, and this court would not shy from taking notice here.” “In the case of us having senior army officer being treated in a manner which calls for the police action of the state, there is utter inaction on the part of concept of accountability and prima facie established misconduct explaining the legal norms,” the red chamber said.

“Such behavior on the part of state forces is intolerable,” said the court. “As a court which ought not to employ violence with such severity against its citizens, and then make the situation worse by failing to take action after it was even reported to the highest officer in the district, senior superintendent of police, Patiala.”

The case of Colonel Bath quote the local police not doing any action within their power to deal with the problem even when the problem was so serious.

"As his petition describes, instead of taking the petitioner's statement and registering an FIR, a sham affidavit was lodged on the behest of an opposing party and the senior officials distress calls were filed as unknown 'affray' complaint,"Petitioner said.

It was also claimed that Bath’s family had to contact high ranking police officials and the governor of Punjab before a ‘correct subsequent FIR’ was recorded eight days later.

"…The biases along with manipulation, delay, and conflict of interests all merge to create an environment where it is impossible to conduct an investigation with any semblance of impartiality and fairness under the Punjab Police…" the petitioner claimed.

Further and in the same motion, Colonel Bath purported staid that CBI or any other autonomous body post the investigation transfer in a bid to “avoid abuse of legal process, guarantee responsibility and restore trust in the observance of law” was necessary.

His family has accused the plainclothes police of asking him to reposition his car so they could park. When the colonel dared to reason with the impertinent tone, they beat him together with his son.

Last week Colonel Bath gave a statement, and based on that, a new FIR was filed by the Punjab Police. This matter is now being handled by a Special Investigative Team.

The ILP Department has also placed all 12 staff members on suspension, while an internal investigation as already ordered. The Punjab Police has already mentioned this.