Questions police about number of FIRs registered across Patiala district during period

Punjab’s attempt to justify the delay in FIR registration in an Army officer assault case by citing farmers’ protests—among other reasons—backfired in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Bench questioned the police about the number of FIRs registered across Patiala district during the period.

The State’s effort to establish the police’s bona fides as a fair investigating agency by citing action against officers also failed to convince the court.

The Bench asked the State to categorically explain whether the action taken so far was sufficient.

“You are not obliging anyone by placing the cops under suspension,” the Bench asserted.

In his detailed order, Justice Sandeep Moudgil also asked the State to file an affidavit specifying: “How many FIRs were registered in Patiala district during the period when the district police was on high alert on account of farmers’ protests at Khanauri border and Shambhu border of Patiala from March 18 to 23?

The Bench clarified that the query was raised because the State had cited farmers’ protests as an excuse for the FIR delay. Justice Moudgil also asked the State to explain “whether it would suffice to place four accused police officials under suspension and transfer four inspectors out of the bounds and jurisdiction of the Patiala district police?”

The court also directed the State to explain why the officers were at the parking area, what their assigned duty was, and where they were coming from at that hour. The court also rejected the State’s prayer for additional time to prove its bonafides by carrying out a fair investigation in place. “You are only buying time…., Justice Moudgil asserted.

The court referred to the State’s submissions that the FIR was registered for attempt to murder and other offences, an SIT had already been constituted, the incident was “unfortunate” and the State was under an obligation and committed to conduct a fair and transparent investigation.

Justice Moudgil, at the same time, asserted the period before the FIR’s registration was material. “It shows no faith in the investigating agency. What will you do in future is unknown…. You may, or may not, do the needful,” the court observed.

Alleging a brutal assault by Punjab Police officers and subsequent manipulation of the investigation, Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath had moved the High Court, seeking a transfer of the probe to the CBI or an independent agency.

Col Bath, serving at a “sensitive post under the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India”, stated that he and his son were “brutally” attacked on the night of March 13-14 in Patiala. He accused four Inspector-rank Punjab Police officers and their armed subordinates of attacking them without provocation, snatching his official ID card and mobile phone, and issuing threats of fake encounters—all in public view and under CCTV surveillance.

The petitioner submitted the local police allegedly failed to take action despite the gravity of the offence. Distress calls to senior officials were ignored. Instead of registering an FIR on his complaint, the police lodged a bogus FIR under ‘affray’ against unknown persons based on a third-party complaint. The officer’s family had to approach senior police officials and even the Governor of Punjab before a subsequent FIR was registered—eight days later.

Col Bath alleged that the accused officers allegedly made video calls to the petitioner’s wife during this period, admitting to the offence, claiming they were intoxicated, and pressuring her to compromise. Eyewitnesses reportedly filed sworn affidavits identifying the officers involved, but the police failed to arrest or interrogate them. They continued to suppress evidence and delay justice.

Col Bath referred to a clear conflict of interest, manipulation, and bias before contending that a fair and impartial investigation was impossible under the Punjab Police. Given his position in a national security agency, he warned of a potential breach of classified information. The petition urged the court to transfer the case to the CBI or another independent agency to prevent a miscarriage of justice and restore public confidence in the rule of law. It was also argued that failure to do so could lead to the demoralisation of armed forces, institutional breakdown, and irreparable harm to public trust.