Chandigarh:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Punjab Police inspector Ronnie Singh Salh in connection with the assault case of Army Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath in Patiala more than two months ago.
Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath had accused 12 Punjab Police personnel of assaulting him and his son over a parking dispute in Patiala outside a dhaba in March.
Bath had then alleged that the assailants — four inspector-rank officers of Punjab Police and their armed subordinates — attacked him and his son without provocation, snatched his ID card and mobile phone, and threatened him with a “fake encounter” — all in public view and under CCTV camera coverage. The colonel suffered a broken arm, while his son had a cut on his head in the incident.
“This vile, uncivilised, 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,” Justice Anoop Chitkara observed in his order.
This horrific, “gut-wrenching incident” showcases the complete misuse of police power by these officers, he said.
“…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,” Justice Chitkara observed.
It appears that this was an unfortunate case of gross misuse of emergency powers under the Police Act, the order reads.
The judge said in his order that the prime duty of the police is not to instil 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 prerequisite 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, harbouring a fear of them in the hearts of hearts. It is behaviour 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,” he observed.
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, he said.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had in April directed Chandigarh Police to probe the case and also issued directions to complete the investigation within four months. Colonel Bath had sought transfer of the probe to the CBI or another independent agency.
Punjab Police lodged a fresh FIR based on Colonel Bath’s statement a week after the alleged incident.
Justice Chitkara, in the order on Friday, observed 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.
“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,” he observed.
The court also called for a thorough investigation by a senior-level officer not less than the rank of an SP into the delay in registration of an FIR on the victim’s complaint.
“…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”.
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, the order says.
“A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached prima facie 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…”, the judge observed, rejecting the anticipatory bail plea
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
