HC questions Patiala SSP's 'vague response' in Colonel Bath assault case, says it 'lacks reasons for delayed action'
PTC Web Desk: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday commenced hearing in the case of Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath’s assault case, with the Punjab Government submitting its response. However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the reply filed by the Patiala SSP, stating that it lacked clarity on the involvement of police personnel. The court noted that the response merely mentioned that the CCTV footage was inconclusive in identifying any individuals clearly.
The High Court questioned why the SSP failed to respond to a message sent by Colonel Pushpinder Singh’s wife on the morning following the incident. Despite direct inquiries from the court, no justification was provided for this inaction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court further raised concerns over the delay in filing the FIR, which was registered only eight days after the incident, casting doubts on the credibility of the investigation.
Senior Advocate RS Rai represented the Punjab Government, urging the court to trust the administration's commitment to conducting a fair probe. The government attributed the delay to the ongoing farmers’ protests at the time, which had occupied police resources. However, the High Court questioned whether FIRs were completely halted during that period and criticised the lack of a clear response from the authorities.
The court pointed out that the SSP's reply did not specify the timeline of complaints received and the reasons for the delayed action. Additionally, it questioned whether police officers accused of an attempted murder case should merely face suspension or if arrests were warranted. In response, the government stated that three days prior, Punjab DGP and senior Army officials had held a joint press conference assuring strict action and a fair probe. The government requested 10 more days to ensure visible progress in the investigation.
Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath’s legal counsel argued that since police officials themselves were accused, an independent agency such as the CBI should handle the investigation. This, they asserted, would enhance public trust and ensure accountability for higher-ranking officials whose negligence may have contributed to the case’s mishandling.
The High Court further raised a crucial question, stating that the FIR was initially registered based on the complaint of the dhaba owner, whereas the actual victims were Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son.
The petitioner’s lawyer reiterated that a CBI investigation would be the best course of action, as several senior police officials were allegedly involved. The lawyer argued that since the police personnel had threatened the Colonel and his son with an encounter, a fair investigation by the Punjab Police could not be expected.
The High Court further questioned the role of the police officials present at the time of the incident. It asked the Punjab Government to clarify what these officials were doing at the scene, what duty they were assigned, whether they were in uniform, and why they were there. The court called these serious concerns and directed the government to provide clear answers.
In response, the government’s counsel sought additional time, stating that they could only respond after reviewing the duty register of the police personnel concerned.
The High Court asked how many FIRs were registered during this period, as the police claimed they were on high alert at the time?. What duty were the police officials assigned to that night, and why were they there?
The hearing has been adjourned until Thursday.
- PTC NEWS
