While expressing its fuming anger at the most horrific incident which demonstrated complete naked gross misuse of power which shook the entire nation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical, livid and latest judgment titled Ronnie Singh Salh vs State of Punjab and others in CRM-M-21153-2025 and further cited in Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:070508 that was reserved on 16.05.2025 and then finally pronounced on 23.05.2025 has rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of a Punjab Police Personnel allegedly involved in the brutally assaulting of an Army Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son in Patiala over two months ago in March with FIR being lodged on March 22, 2025 in Police Station of Civil Lines in Patiala under Sections 109, 310, 115(2), 117(1), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 299, 191 of BNS added later on). It may be recalled that the Chandigarh High Court in April had directed Chandigarh Police to probe the case and also issued directions to complete the investigation within four months. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Chitkara while passing the detailed and descriptive order most strongly condemned the grave misconduct of the police officials involved calling the most condemnable incident as “vile, uncivilized, pitiless and brutal.” To recapitulate, this leading case stemmed from a March incident in Patiala in Punjab where Col Bath alleged that he and his son were assaulted by 12 Punjab Police personnel in which four Inspectors were also involved outside a dhaba over a parking dispute. Col Bath claimed that the police officers, without any provocation thrashed him, broke his arm, caused head injuries to his son, snatched his ID card and mobile phone, and even threatened a “fake encounter” — all in public gaze and also under CCTV coverage.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Chitkara of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner, apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.”
As we see, the Bench points out in para 2 that, “In paragraph 30 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “The initial facts are taken from the translated copy of the FIR attached with the bail petition as Annexure P-1. The FIR was registered based on a complaint made by Mr. Pushpinder Singh Bath, stating that he was serving as a Colonel in the Army and was posted in Delhi.”
While elaborating, the Bench discloses in para 5 stating that, “On the intervening night of 13/14 March 2025, at 12:15 a.m., he, along with his son, Angad Singh, were enroute to their home in Patiala in their car. They stopped to eat at Harbans Dhaba, which is located closer to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. His son, Angad Singh, had also invited his friend, Angad Talwar, to join them. While they were eating Maggie noodles, which were kept on the trunk of their car, Angad Talwar also arrived in his car.”
While shedding more light, the Bench then enunciates in para 6 observing that, “At that point in time, a Scorpio vehicle came from the side of Rajindra Hospital and stopped there, and about 7-8 men in civilian clothes alighted from the said vehicle, which had blinking red and blue lights affixed on the top of its roof. One of them rudely told the complainant party to move the car, otherwise they would break their legs. On this, the complainant replied that he would move the car, but the tone of that person was inappropriate. On this, one of those persons punched the complainant in the face, hitting his spectacles, and the inner side of the glasses hit his nose, and he blacked out and fell on the ground. After that, they started kicking him while he lay on the ground. In between, his son Angad Singh tried to intervene, but he was also assaulted and beaten with fists and sticks. However, his son Angad Singh managed to get the complaint into their car, but they resumed attacking him.”
Most shockingly, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 pointing out how police behaved like goons stating that, “When Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath regained some consciousness, he apprised these people that he was a Colonel in the Army by showing his identity card. On this, one of the attackers snatched his identity card, and another person took his mobile phone, and they again started beating him. Angad Singh pleaded with them to return the service identity card of his father and not to beat his father, instead beat him and spare his father, the complainant. On this, one of the attackers said that they had just returned from an encounter, and if anyone survives, they can collect the identity card from ACP Civil Lines in the morning. When the complainant party tried to drive away, their car was attacked by the said persons with sticks and iron rods.”
Further, the Bench then reveals in para 8 mentioning that, “In between, Angad Talwar made a phone call to the complainant’s wife and informed her about the incident. During the assault, some of the attackers had identified themselves as Harjinder Dhillon, Harry Boparai, Roni Singh (petitioner), and Surjit Singh. The complainant further stated that he could identify them if brought before him. They then returned to their home, and later, they were taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, a government hospital, by the complainant’s wife and other relatives. Based on this information, the above-captioned FIR was registered on 22 March 2025.”
Most atrociously, the Bench then while shedding light on delay in lodging FIR specifies in para 9 stating that, “Upon examining Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son, Angad Singh, the doctors at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, found both simple and grievous injuries on the person of the complainant and his son. The doctors did not mention any of the patients smelling of alcohol or showing signs of intoxication. However, despite the nature of the injuries, which included a fracture and the recording of DDR No. 13 dated 14.03.2025 at the Police Post Model Town, Patiala, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Police Station Civil Line, the FIR was registered on 22.03.2025, i.e., eight days after the incident.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 41 that, “There is no reason to doubt the complainant’s version that he was serving as a Colonel in the Indian Army, which, without laying down any law, would be equivalent to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police or Police Commissioner. There is also nothing to cast a doubt on the fact that the complainant, Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, was posted in Delhi and was returning to his house at Patiala.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 42 that, “There is no question as to doubt why a Colonel stopped at a roadside Dhaba, when he had reached Patiala at midnight, because that would depend on a multitude of factors like how hungry one is at that moment, one’s convenience, etc. At midnight, if someone wants to skip dinner and take light snacks, as the complainant, Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, and his son were doing, it is their personal life and personal choice. Regarding the complainant taking snacks/Maggi noodles while keeping it on the bonnet of his car, this is also not disputed because of the footage in the video clip all the tables appear to be occupied at that time.”
To say the very least, the Bench then puts forth in para 43 that, “Even if we assume that the complainant was rude to the police when asked to move their vehicle, it is worth noting that the officials were in a car with its standard emergency blue and red lights on. Common sense/knowledge dictates that any sane individual or even an illiterate person would be more pliable, considerate, attentive and respectful to someone representing such authority, and would generally only counter disrespect when met with disrespect in the first place, as the saying goes ‘respect begets respect’.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 44 holding that, “Even if it is hypothetically assumed that the victims had wrongfully parked their car on the roadside, still the job of a law enforcement officer is to issue a challan (Ticket) to that motor vehicle which has violated any such law. 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 on the drop of the hat and disrespect civilians, wielding their authority to disregard and disrupt law and order themselves. It appears that this was an unfortunate case of gross misuse of emergency powers under the Police Act. The callous and violent way in which these police officers are seen to be beating those two people visibly, clearly demonstrates an inhumane, aggressive and arrogant attitude of a cruel mindset which is uncharacteristic of what our respectable and valiant police force actually represents. This vile, uncivilized, pitiless and brutal way is not the manner in which a police force ought to behave with its people, anywhere, and especially, in a democratic country like ours.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 45 that, “The prime duty of the police is not to instill fear in the minds of public using unwarranted force but to secure observance of law and order and to bring that goal to fruition, a pre-requisite is adherence to and respect for legal framework itself. It is common knowledge that the majority of the people, especially the poor, downtrodden, and illiterate, have been deeply conditioned to be afraid of the police, harboring a fear of them in the hearts of hearts. It is behavior like that as seen in the present case, exhibited by a thin minority of officials, which inspires such fear and terror and is exemplary of incidents fuelling such narratives. On the contrary, the purpose of the police force is to impartially, without fear or favour, and without biases, take care of its people, with sensitivity, affection, empathy and kindness on the one hand; while being firm, honest and astute on the other, using reasonable force when it is inevitable to control hooliganism and criminality.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 46 that, “The complainant’s case is that, despite informing the police officers of his identity as a Colonel in the Indian Army and showing his identity card, the police officers did not stop with their thrashing, which further highlights the high headedness, cruelty, arrogance and lack of any empathy of the police team.”
Most damningly, the Bench held in para 47 that, “The most disturbing aspect of this incident is that the accused, well aware of their duties as serving police officers despite coming to know through the identity card of the victim that he was a colonel in the army, showed zero signs to stop, snatched his Id card, intimidated him, threatened his life and continued to unsparingly beat him. Such conduct of the police team in brutally beating an individual, even after being made aware that he was a serving member of the armed forces reflects the mindset of some of the police officers in this part of the country. We must not forget so early that this region is closer to a hostile border, has a history of militancy, and is still battling cross-border narco-terrorism.”
Most alarmingly, what one finds most deeply anguishing is as noted by the Bench in para 48 that, “If it was the assault alone which was the problem, the gravity of the issue would have been different, the fact which makes the entire episode even more worrisome is the non action of the senior officers to make sure that an FIR was registered without delay, to bring perpetrators to justice. A fundamental aspect which must be thoroughly investigated by a senior level police officer and certainly not less than of the Senior Superintendent of Police is the manner in which FIR No.65 was registered under 194(2) BNS in Police Station Patiala based on the complaint of Dhaba owner and non-registration of FIR 69 earlier, despite involving a grievous injury and a complaint about causing assault. Even if the complainant was not Colonel Pushpinder Singh, but his son, who is not a defence personnel, and appears to be a civilian, the complaint should have been registered. Despite the complainant disclosing his identity as a serving Colonel, the FIR was not registered till 22.03.2025. This shows the State has empowered its police officers to such an extreme extent that they are not even bothered to register a case based on a complaint made by a colonel-level officer of the Army. It is both, alarming and disheartening, that senior-level police officers did not intervene and did not issue any directions for the registration of an FIR. The complainant had to wait for eight long days for registration of the FIR, which according to the complainant’s counsel was done only when there was a public furore. On the contrary an FIR of affray was registered on the same day. If this paints any picture of the ground level reality, one can only imagine the plight and helplessness of a common man.”
Most significantly, the Bench forthrightly observes in para 49 which encapsulates the cornerstone of this notable judgment holding that, “It appears that these police officers were oblivious to the significance of the positions they held, where they are duty bound to maintain law and order in a country which is sovereign because of the sacrifice and efforts of millions of courageous, selfless people including but not limited to those in the Police, Para Military, and the defence forces to which the complainant belonged. If the police officers display such brutality, high handedness and disrespect towards the members who belong to our esteemed defense services, such a reprehensible conduct would certainly be against the whole Nation and may even imply that such officers would be happy to serve any ruler, which defies the entire purpose for which a democracy would give them so much power in the first place.”
Most rationally, the Bench points out in para 50 holding that, “[Cruelty] implies there is something inhuman and barbarous -something more than the mere extinguishment of life. (In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. at 436 [Refer: Ma‑hew Lippman, Contemporary criminal law: concepts, cases, and controversies, University of Illinois at Chicago, 51, SAGE, California, USA, fourth edi0on, 2016]). The offense is heinous, and the crime brutal. Cruelty is one of the important factors in deciding on bail. 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. Once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, they should ordinarily not grant bail. If the courts deem it appropriate to grant bail, it must be after specifying the reasons for such an indulgence. In the present case, an analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the accused.”
Truth be told, the Bench states in para 51 that, “Regarding the identity of the present petitioner, the reply has been filed by the SP, UT, Chandigarh, in which the petitioner’s identity is confirmed as one of the members of the police team that assaulted the victims. Even the petitioner’s counsel during arguments did not raise any arguments about identification, and the only dispute was about admission, to which this Court is not even contemplating.”
Quite disturbingly, the Bench points out in para 52 that, “Another perturbing aspect is that the accused attempted to fabricate evidence by getting treated in a private hospital. Such deviously crafty behavior and conduct is distressing as it portrays an assumption of possessing unfettered powers, as such officers are Emperors of their police jurisdiction, which can never be the intent of legislature. They could have gone to Rajindra Hospital, which was located near the scene of the assault and was government-run, but probably realizing that the doctors there might still be independent, they chose a private hospital from which they could have received favors by leveraging their influence. It appears they succeeded in this, but it has had no consequences.”
Most remarkably, the Bench underscores in para 53 holding that, “There is no doubt that the petitioner and his accomplices were the aggressors who started assaulting the complainant and his son on a parking issue, simply because the manner in which they demanded complainant party’s car to be moved was objected to by the latter. Despite the complainant claiming to be a Colonel in the Indian Army, they did not stop and continued to beat him. When one of the victims managed to get inside the car, he was pulled out and beaten again. This horrific, gut wrenching incident showcases the complete misuse of police power by these officers. Not taking a serious note of such a deplorable and inexcusable act by some high level police officials, some being at Inspector level, would not only put the safety and dignity of our nation and the entire society at peril but would also be a heavy blow to the high standards of morals, values and ethics, the majority of the brave hearts in these honorable defence and police forces stand for and represent.”
Notably, the Bench candidly concedes in para 54 maintaining that, “A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.”
Finally and for sake of clarity, the Bench then sagaciously draws the curtains of this robust judgment clarifying and holding most clearly in para 55 that, “Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. PETITION DISMISSED. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court while displaying absolute zero tolerance to police high handedness refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Inspector accused of assaulting most brutally a serving Colonel of Indian Army and his son! The Court took potshots at the brutal, blind and baseless misuse of power by police which cannot be ever tolerated in any democratic country like ours! Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi
