Even After Identifying Him as a Colonel, They Kept Beating Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Police Officer Accused of Brutal Assault

“Such Officers Believe They Are Emperors in Their Jurisdiction, But This Is Not a Police Raj” — Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a strongly worded judgment authored by Justice Anoop Chitkara, dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Ronnie Singh Salh, a Punjab Police officer, accused of assaulting Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son Angad Singh during a midnight altercation outside a Patiala dhaba.

Observing that the conduct of the petitioner and his accomplices was “inhumane, barbaric, cruel, and a horrific misuse of power,” the Court refused protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The incident, caught on CCTV and supported by medical reports, revealed a calculated and violent beating, allegedly involving trained police personnel using dandas on unarmed civilians, despite being told one of the victims was an Army Colonel.

“Despite the complainant disclosing his identity as a serving Colonel, the FIR was not registered till 22.03.2025… If this paints any picture of the ground level reality, one can only imagine the plight and helplessness of a common man.” — Justice Anoop Chitkara

The incident occurred on the night of March 13–14, 2025, when Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, returning from Delhi to his home in Patiala, stopped at Harbans Dhaba near Rajendra Hospital with his son Angad Singh and his son's friend. While they were eating Maggi noodles from the car trunk, a Scorpio with blinking red and blue police lights arrived, and 7–8 men in civilian clothes, including the petitioner Ronnie Singh, allegedly launched an unprovoked assault, first verbally and then physically.

Even after the Colonel identified himself as a serving Army officer and presented his ID, the beatings allegedly intensified. His son pleaded with the assailants to stop, only to be beaten as well. The car was attacked with sticks and iron rods. Multiple CCTV angles later surfaced, capturing parts of the brutal assault. The FIR was finally registered eight days later, on March 22, only after public outrage.

“The callous and violent way in which these police officers are seen to be beating those two people visibly, clearly demonstrates an inhumane, aggressive and arrogant attitude of a cruel mindset.” — Para 44, Judgment

Grave Offences Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The FIR invoked multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including:

• Section 109 BNS (Attempt to Commit Murder),

• Sections 310, 115(2), 117(1), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2), 190, 299, 191 BNS (relating to unlawful restraint, hurt, grievous hurt, and fabrication of evidence).

Justice Chitkara noted that even if Section 109 (attempt to murder) were not ultimately sustained, the use of dandas by trained police personnel with sufficient force qualified the weapons as “dangerous” under Section 118(2) BNS, which carries a punishment extending to ten years or life imprisonment.

“Dandas used by trained police officers in this brutal manner... bring them into the category of dangerous weapons.” — Para 32

Corroboration Through Medical and Video Evidence

The MLRs from Rajindra Hospital, a government facility, recorded both grievous and simple injuries, including fractures, bruises, and abrasions on the Colonel and his son. Justice Chitkara emphasized that the injuries satisfied the legal test for ‘grievous hurt’ under Section 116(g) and Section 117 of BNS.

Further, video evidence from CCTV footage at the Dhaba supported the victims’ version. The footage showed the SUV with blinkers, beatings using sticks, and the lack of any police restraint during the assault. The Court remarked:

“Not even a single police officer came to break up the fight or to ask their colleagues to stop… In the video, none of the accused is seen stopping those involved at the time of the beating.” — Para 27

Delay in FIR and Fabrication of Counter-Narrative

The Court noted with alarm that no FIR was registered against the accused until eight days after the incident, even though grievous injuries were recorded on the same night. Instead, the police registered an FIR of affray (FIR No. 65) on the complaint of the Dhaba owner, accusing the victims of public nuisance.

“This shows the State has empowered its police officers to such an extreme extent that they are not even bothered to register a case based on a complaint made by a colonel-level officer of the Army.” — Para 48

Justice Chitkara stated that this manipulation of records undermined the credibility of the police narrative and highlighted institutional bias in favour of the accused officers.

Denial of Bail: Cruelty and Threat to Public Confidence

The Court described the incident as a “gut-wrenching display of police brutality”, adding that such behavior undermines public trust in law enforcement, particularly when perpetrated by officers at the level of Inspector.

“Cruelty is one of the important factors in deciding bail… A cruel person amok is a potential threat to the safety of those around, much like a landmine waiting to explode.” — Para 50

Justice Chitkara concluded that granting anticipatory bail would send the wrong signal, particularly when the accused are trained law enforcers who abused their authority. The Court emphasized that the rule of law must prevail even when officers are accused, and noted the special vulnerability of ordinary citizens who lack the rank or resources to obtain justice.

This decision is a sharp rebuke to institutional high-handedness and a reassertion of judicial oversight over police misconduct. Justice Chitkara not only denied bail but also took the opportunity to deliver a morally and constitutionally grounded reminder of the police's role in a democratic society.

“If the police officers display such brutality, high-handedness, and disrespect towards members of our esteemed defense services, such a reprehensible conduct would certainly be against the whole Nation.” — Para 49

The Court found no merit in the plea for anticipatory bail, noting that the nature of the crime, the strength of the evidence, and the gravity of misconduct did not warrant leniency at the pre-trial stage.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2025