Colonel Assault Case: Punjab Police Inspector’s Anticipatory Bail Rejected
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Colonel Assault Case: Punjab Police Inspector’s Anticipatory Bail Rejected
Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath had accused 12 Punjab Police personnel of assaulting him and his son over a parking dispute in Patiala in March. The colonel suffered a broken arm, while his son had a cut on his head in the incident. 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. 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. He also called for a thorough investigation by a senior-level officer not less than the rank of an SP into the victim’s complaint in the delay on an FIR complaint. The court also called the police officers’ high-headedness and disrespect towards the members of our esteemed defense services a reprehensible reprehensible conduct against the whole nation and may imply that such officers would be happy to serve any ruler, which defies the entire purpose for a democracy.
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.)
Army officer assault case: Prime duty of police not to instil fear, says Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismisses anticipatory bail of accused police official
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of one of the twelve accused. The twelve accused allegedly assaulted an Army officer and his son in March this year in Punjab’s Patiala over a parking dispute. The incident occurred on the intervening night of March 13-14. The High Court handed over the case from the Punjab Police to a new Special Investigating Team (SIT) of Chandigarh (Union Territory) Police. In his order on May 23, Justice Anoop Chitkara said “The prime duty of the police is not to instil fear in the minds of public using unwarranted force”
Dismissing bail to the petitioner, Justice Anoop Chitkara in his order on May 23, said “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 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, 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. 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.”
Also Read | Congress seeks arrest of Punjab Police personnel who assaulted an army officer in Patiala
Inspector Ronnie Singh, who was among others suspended and booked under cognisable and non-bailable sections including 109, 310, 115(2), 117(1), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the case had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail. The incident occurred on the intervening night of March 13-14, in which Colonel Pushpinder Bath and his son were allegedly assaulted by police officials. Notably, the FIR was registered days after public outrage. Later, the High Court handed over the case from the Punjab Police to a new Special Investigating Team (SIT) of Chandigarh (Union Territory) Police.
Justice Chitkara added 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 Indian 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 narcoterrorism,” he said.
“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,” read the order.
HC rejects anticipatory bail petition of cop in Colonel assault case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of police officer Ronnie Singh Salh, one of the cops who had allegedly assaulted a Colonel and his son over two months ago in Patiala. Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted that the incident showed a “complete misuse of police power” by the officers. The court called for a thorough investigation into the delay in the registration of an FIR on the victim’s plea and other aspects, while referring to inaction on senior police officers’ part for bringing the “perpetrators to justice” The alleged incident had taken place on March 13 night inPatiala, where Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his. son were allegedly assaulted by police personnel over a parking dispute.
Advertisement
The alleged incident had taken place on March 13 night in Patiala, where Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son were allegedly assaulted by police personnel over a parking dispute.
Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted that the incident showed a “complete misuse of police power” by the officers.
Advertisement
The admonition came as Justice Chitkara called for a thorough investigation into the delay in the registration of an FIR on the victim’s plea and other aspects, while referring to inaction on senior police officers’ part for bringing the “perpetrators to justice”.
Justice Chitkara observed that two FIRs were registered – first for affray based on a complaint made by owner of a dhaba, where the incident took place, and the subsequent one on the army officer’s plea.
Advertisement
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 was registered based on the dhaba owner’s complaint and non-registration of earlier on the army officer’s plea “despite involving a grievous injury and a complaint about causing assault”.
“It is astonishing that the police immediately registered an FIR on finding an offence of affray. However, despite the earlier DDR disclosing injuries and fractures… no FIR was registered until March 22,” the court observed, terming the delay disturbing and suggestive of bias.
Justice Chitkara asserted the callous and violent way in which police officers were seen to be beating the two “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, 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 Chitkara added the police are meant to uphold law and order with fairness, not instill fear through unwarranted force. “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 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”.
The court added that the most disturbing part was that the accused police officers, fully aware of their duties and even after learning that the victim was a serving Colonel, showed no restraint. They snatched his ID, threatened his life and brutally beat him.
“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,” the Bench observed.
Holding that there appeared to be an intentional effort to scare away the visitors who could have acted as “independent witnesses” and assault the complainants in isolation, Justice Chitkara asserted: “Even if it is hypothetically assumed that the victims had wrongfully parked their car… still the job of a law enforcement officer is to issue a challan. It is not the job of any trained and licensed law enforcement officer to physically manhandle the occupants of the vehicle, let alone beat them black and blue.”
Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/colonel-assault-case-punjab-police-inspectors-anticipatory-bail-rejected-8492388