The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Punjab Police inspector Ronnie Singh Salh, who is one of the key accused in the assault case of Army Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath in Patiala over two months ago.
Justice Anoop Chitkara, while passing the detailed order, condemned the conduct of the police officials involved, calling the incident “vile, uncivilised, pitiless and brutal.” The Court said such behaviour by law enforcement officers was not acceptable in a democratic nation and amounted to a gross misuse of police powers.
The case stems from a March incident in Patiala, where Colonel Bath alleged that he and his son were assaulted by 12 Punjab Police personnel, including four inspectors, outside a dhaba over a parking dispute. He claimed the officers, without 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 view and under CCTV coverage.
Justice Chitkara remarked that even if the parking was wrongful, it did not justify the violent reaction. “The job of a trained law enforcer… is not to mete out unmerciful, furious beatings… but to uphold law and order with restraint and legality,” he noted.
Highlighting the incident as an example of systemic issues, the Court observed that fear of police is still prevalent among the poor and illiterate due to the behaviour of a “thin minority” of officers who misuse their authority. “The duty of police is not to instill fear but to impartially protect people with empathy and firmness when needed,” the order read.
The judge also took note of the delay in lodging the FIR and directed that a senior officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, investigate the delay. The Court had earlier asked Chandigarh Police to take over the probe and complete it within four months.
The High Court strongly criticised the indifference shown by the police officers even after Colonel Bath disclosed his identity as a serving Army officer, calling it a “reflection of arrogance, cruelty and a lack of empathy.”
Justice Chitkara warned that such conduct undermines the ethos of democracy and could indicate readiness “to serve any ruler,” which is contrary to the very purpose of vesting such powers in a democratic setup.
“There is no doubt that the petitioner and his accomplices were the aggressors,” the Court said, stating that the bail plea and supporting documents prima facie pointed to the inspector’s involvement.
Consequently, the Court denied anticipatory bail, observing that the gravity and impact of the alleged crime do not justify such relief.
