The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday censured Chandigarh Police for “trying to create loopholes in the investigation” of a case concerning assault of an Army officer by officials of Punjab Police [Col. Pushpinder Singh Bath vs State of UT, Chandigarh]
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj withdrew the probe from Chandigarh Police and handed it over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after observing that there was no prospect of free and fear investigation by the Union Territory Police.
“The Court is convinced that the Investigating Agency is not only trying to create loopholes in the investigation, but trying to make craters in the investigation so as to ensure that once the charge-sheet is filed before the Court, the case of the prosecution should hardly be able to crawl in the Court. The purpose of the investigation is to bring out the truth and not to suppress the same. The success of the Investigating Agency is in collecting the best of the evidence and present the same before the Court and not to fabricate the evidence and submit the hopeless charge-sheet before the Court so as to ensure that the Court is left with no other option then to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused,” the Court said.
Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son Angad Singh were allegedly assaulted by the personnel of Punjab Police in March this year in Patiala after a dispute over car parking. The policemen in civvies included four Inspector-rank officers.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered only eight days after the incident. Bath later approached the High Court seeking transfer of investigation. On April 3, the investigation was taken away from Punjab Police and handed over to Chandigarh Police, to be headed by an IPS officer of Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) Cadre.
However, Bath recently approached the Court again, alleging that a tainted investigation was going on to shield the Punjab Police cops. It was also submitted that none of the accused had been arrested.
Bath’s counsel also highlighted that though he had suffered a fracture and his son had received eight injuries, the police had deleted the offence of attempt to murder in the case. In response, the police said Section 109 (Section 307 of Indian Penal Code) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was not made out.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Justice Bhardwaj said there was no material to convince the Court that the investigation was being carried out in a free and fair manner.
“Time limit of four months granted by this Court is almost over. Without concluding the investigation, the Investigating Agency has already made up its mind to delete the offence under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC), which substantiate the apprehension of the petitioner that the Investigating Agency is proceeding in a tainted manner to give benefit to the accused,” the single-judge added.
Taking exception to the lack of action against the accused, the Court said it cannot lose sight of the fact that all of them are service police officials.
The Court's role is to ensure free and fair investigation even though the investigating agency determines the 'how and manner' of the investigation, it stressed
“This Court had entrusted the investigation out of the State of Punjab so as to ensure an impartial investigation but the Court finds no change in the situation. Without completing the investigation, when the Investigating Agency has already deleted the offence under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC), approach of the Investigating Agency is clear enough. A free and fair investigation is the backbone of every criminal trial. If the investigation itself is compromised, the trial before the Court looses its sanctity. The supremacy of the law is independent of the status of the accused,” the Court added.
Thus, the Court proceeded to transfer the probe to the CBI.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court cannot be a moot spectator to the conduct of the Investigating Agency in conducting the investigation in a tainted manner. Hence, the investigation of the case is withdrawn from UT, Chandigarh with immediate effect. Hereinafter, the investigation of the case is handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation,” it ordered.
Advocate Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia and Deepinder Singh Virk represented the petitioner.
Public Prosecutor Manish Bansal and Additional Public Prosecutor Alankrit Bhardwaj represented the Union Territory of of Chandigarh.
Advocate Akashdeep Singh represented the CBI.
Advocate Karunesh Kaushal represented the State of Punjab.
[Read Order]