Supreme Court To Hear Plea On CBI Probe Transfer Monday
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Supreme Court to hear challenge against High Court order handing over colonel assault probe to CBI.
Petitioner alleges Chandigarh Police failed to act despite serious claims.
New Delhi: On August 3, the Supreme Court of India will on Monday hear a petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to transfer the investigation into the alleged assault of an Army colonel by Punjab Police officers to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The incident reportedly took place in March this year during a late-night altercation over a parking issue.
According to the details, the alleged incident occurred on the night between March 13 and 14 when Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son were eating food at a roadside dhaba (local eatery) in Patiala, Punjab.
It is claimed that a group of Punjab Police officers assaulted the colonel and his son over a parking-related dispute.
The case will be heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Colonel Bath has also filed a caveat in the apex court through advocate Sumeer Sodhi. A caveat is a legal precaution where a party requests the court not to pass any order without first hearing their side.
Earlier, on July 16, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ordered that the case be transferred to the CBI.
This decision came two days after the same court criticised the Chandigarh Police for its poor handling of the investigation.
Initially, on April 3, the High Court had directed Chandigarh Police to take over the investigation from the Punjab Police and to complete it within four months.
However, Colonel Bath later submitted to the court that the Chandigarh Police had “failed” to carry out a free and fair probe.
He alleged that even after more than three-and-a-half months since the FIR was registered and three months after the Chandigarh Police took charge of the investigation, no significant action had been taken.
The petition submitted,
“The investigation of the instant case was transferred to the Chandigarh Police on April 3, 2025, and it is being stated with utmost disappointment that even despite lapse of more than three-and-a-half months of the registration of the FIR and lapse of three months since the investigation has been handed over to Chandigarh Police, neither a single accused has been arrested so far, nor any accused has been associated with the investigation,”
The probe was being handled by a special investigation team (SIT) led by Superintendent of Police Manjeet Sheoran from Chandigarh.
ALSO READ: Pushpa-2 Stampede Case: Court Relaxes Allu Arjun’s Bail Conditions, Permits Travel Abroad
The petition added,
“Moreover, the contention of the petitioner regarding any conscious effort on the part of the investigating agency can be cemented from the fact that no non bailable warrant, no PO (proclaimed offender) proceeding or any other legal proceeding which would be indicative of some conscious and sincere effort, has been initiated on the part of the concerned Investigating agency,”
Colonel Bath has accused a total of 12 Punjab Police personnel of physically attacking him and his son. He claimed that four inspector-level officers, along with their armed subordinates, attacked them without any provocation.
He also alleged that his official identity card and mobile phone were snatched during the incident. He further claimed that the police personnel threatened him with a “fake encounter” and that all this happened publicly and under CCTV surveillance.
Due to the severity of the allegations and doubts over the fairness of a state-level investigation, Colonel Bath had earlier demanded that the case be handed over to an independent agency, preferably the CBI.
ALSO READ: Indian Identity Abroad Rooted in Constitution, Not Just Culture: Justice Surya Kant
Before the case was handed over to the Chandigarh Police, Colonel Bath had said that he had no hope of a fair investigation under the Punjab Police.
He maintained that because the accused belonged to the same police department, there was a risk of bias, interference, and lack of proper inquiry.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Foreign Travel Condition
