12ININ T THNHEHG NCN

112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-36362-2025 

Date of Decision: 16.07.2025

Col. Pushpinder Singh Bath ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of UT, Chandigarh and others .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate and

Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh with

Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Addl.PP, UT, Chandigarh.

Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, for CBI.

Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present second petition under Section 528 of the

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for transfer of investigation of

the case FIR No.69, dated 22.03.2025, registered at Police Station Civil

Lines, Patiala for the offence punishable under Section 109, 310, 115(2),

117(1), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2), 190 of BNS, 2023 to which Sections 299,

191 of BNS, 2023 have been added at a later stage, to an independent

agency preferably Central Bureau of Investigation in view of the fact that

Chandigarh Police to whom the investigation of the present FIR was earlier

transferred vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in C2ININCT8HCNHEHG has

failed to conduct a free and fair investigation.

2. The case in hand is a glaring example where the sentinels of the

society have themselves thrown the majesty of law to the winds. The

petitioner before this Court is the victim who is praying for a free and fair

CRMM363622025 2

investigation in the said FIR lodged by him. As per the facts alleged by the

petitioner in the FIR, on 13.03.2025, at about 12:15 a.m., the petitioner

alongwith his son Angad Singh, was travelling from Delhi to Patiala in his

car (Honda Civic PB10CC0101). They stopped outside Rajindra Hospital

at Harbans Dhabha for having food. His son called his friend Angad Talwar,

who also arrived there in his car. In the meantime, a Scorpio car emerged

from Rajindra Hospital and stopped. About 78 men in civilian clothes came

out of the car and approached them. They aggressively told the complainant

side to move their car or they would break their legs. Thereafter, they

opened attack on the complainant and his son. The complainant revealed his

identity that he was a serving Colonel in Army, but despite that they kept

beating all of them mercilessly. The ID card of the complainant was also

snatched. They all suffered multiple injuries. Some of the attackers

identified themselves as Harjinder Dhillon, Harry Boparai, Roni Singh and

Surjit Singh. The complainant side was admitted in Rajindra Hospital, where

they were medically treated. The complainant kept running from pillar to

post, but no FIR was lodged at his behest. However, the FIR was lodged

eight days after the occurrence i.e. on 22.03.2025. The accused in the present

case were identified to be the police officials and thus, the complainant

apprehending no fair investigation, earlier approached this Court by way of

filing CRMM164212025 seeking transfer of the investigation. This Court

on the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, transferred the

investigation of this FIR vide consent order dated 03.04.2025 to an IPS

Officer posted in UT, Chandigarh belonging to AGMUT Cadre by passing

the following order:

CRMM363622025 3

“Accordingly, without commenting anything further on

the respective claims of the parties as well as on the merits of

the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the party, the

present petition is disposed of with the consent of both the

parties, in the following terms:

1. The Director General of Police, Chandigarh is directed

to entrust the investigation of the FIR (supra) to an IPS

Officer posted in U.T., Chandigarh, belonging to

AGMUT Cadre, within a period of 01 week from the date

of receipt of certified copy of this order.

2. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the

investigation of the case within a period of 04 months and

thereafter submit the report before the concerned

jurisdictional Court.

3. The Director General of Police, Punjab, is directed to

give full cooperation to the Investigating Officer in the

investigation of the case.”

This Court had directed the Investigating Officer to conclude

the investigation within a period of four months. The complainant finding no

hope of fair and free investigation has again approached this Court by way

of filing the present second petition.

3. Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate assisted by Mr.

Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has

vehemently contended that the petitioner before this Court is a serving Army

Officer, who is presently on deputation in Delhi. It is submitted that the

accused in the present case are police officials and it is because of the same,

the respondentState since beginning, is trying its level best to shield the

accused persons. He submits that the approach of the State is apparent from

the fact that the complainant and his son were brutally beaten by the accused

police officials without any rhyme and reason, but despite that no FIR was

lodged for eight days by the State. It is submitted that after eight days,

though the FIR was lodged, but the respondentState started exercising all

CRMM363622025 4

the tactics to suppress the truth by not proceeding with the investigation in a

free and fair manner. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by

way of filing CRMM164212025 and this Court made strict observations

regarding the malafide approach of the Investigating Agency and finally

being satisfied that the Investigating Agency is not proceeding with the

investigation in a free and fair manner, transferred the investigation from the

State of Punjab to UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 03.04.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further vehemently

contended that one of the coaccused, namely, Ronnie Singh Salh

approached this Court by way of filing CRMM211532025 praying for the

grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that status report was filed by the

State and during the course of arguments, CCTV footage was also played

before the Court. He submits that this Court had taken into consideration the

merits of the case and the conduct of the Investigating Agency in detail. He

submits that on taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances,

this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by accused Ronnie

Singh Salh vide its order dated 23.05.2025. He has invited the attention of

this Court to the observations made by Coordinate Bench while rejecting

the anticipatory bail. He submits that the Investigating Officer had filed an

affidavit in the same wherein the Court was assured that in case the

anticipatory bail of accused Ronnie Singh Salh is rejected, the accused

would be arrested. However, even after dismissal of the anticipatory bail, the

Investigating Agency has continued with its conduct of a tainted

investigation so as to protect the accused persons who are none other than

the police official. He submits that by a specific observation this Court had

CRMM363622025 5

directed the Investigation to be conducted within a period of four months

and the time limit given by this Court will come to an end on 03.08.2025,

however, neither any accused has been arrested so far nor any statement has

been recorded. However, all the efforts are being made to present a crippled

chargesheet before the trial Court. He submits that as per the MLR, the

complainant suffered five injuries, out of which injury No.1 was a fracture,

whereas, his son suffered eight injuries and despite that the Investigating

Agency has deleted offence under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC). It is

submitted that the incident has taken place before Rajindra Hospital and the

injured complainant and his son got themselves admitted in Rajindra

Hospital, whereas, the accused intentionally procured their medical record

from a private hospital. He submits that the record of the private hospital

was also manipulated so as to mislead the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that this

Court had directed the Director General of Police, Chandigarh to entrust the

investigation to an Officer not below the rank of SSP, however, the same has

been entrusted to IPS Manjeet, Superintendent of Police (Headquarter and

Intelligence), UT, Chandigarh and thus, he is not even competent to

investigate the case in view of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted

that the investigation of the case was transferred to UT, Chandigarh so as to

ensure a free and fair investigation as the accused persons are officials of

Punjab Police, but there is no progress in the investigation even after

handing over the investigation to UT, Chandigarh. The Investigating Agency

is making out all the efforts to suppress the truth. He further submits that in

FIR No.65 statement of Karanjot Singh, (Dhaba owner) under Section 183

12ININ T THNHEHG NTN

of BNSS (Section 164 Cr.P.C) has been recorded just to fabricate the

evidence. He submits that in the attending facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court should intervene to ensure a free and fair investigation in the

case. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat,  (2010) 1

RCR (Criminal) 738; Rashmi Behl vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 2

RCR (Criminal) 45; Pooja Pal vs. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135;

and Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. State of Rajasthan, 2020(16) SCC 777.

He, thus, submits that the investigation of case entrusted to UT, Chandigarh

be withdrawn and the same be handed over to the Central Bureau of

Investigation.

4. This Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 summoned t he

Investigating Officer i.e. IPS Manjeet, Superintendent of Police

(Headquarter and Intelligence), UT, Chandigarh alongwith the record, who

is present in the Court.

5. Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh assisted b y Mr.

Alankrit Bhardwaj, Addl.PP, UT, Chandigarh, has vehemently opposed the

submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that

the investigation of this case was entrusted to UT, Chandigarh vide order

dated 03.04.2025 and the State vide order dated 10.04.2025, constituted a

Special Investigation Team. He has given the sequence of the investigation

being carried out by UT, Chandigarh after having been entrusted the

investigation. He has brought the attention of this Court to the steps taken so

far in conducting the investigation. He submits that after the dismissal of the

anticipatory bail of accused Ronnie Singh Salh, raids were conducted to

12ININ T THNHEHG NmN

arrest him, however, he could not be apprehended. He submits that opinion

of the Doctor regarding the injuries was sought and the Doctor vide his

opinion dated 10.06.2025 had opined that the injuries suffered by

complainant Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son Angad Singh Bath were not

dangerous in nature. Thus, the Investigating Agency is of the opinion that

offence under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC) is not made out. He

submits that the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner, are without

any basis and the investigation would be conducted in a free and fair

manner.

The Court has interacted with the Investigating Officer i.e. IPS

Manjeet, Superintendent of Police (Headquarter and Intelligence), UT,

Chandigarh, who is present in Court. He has submitted that as the offence

under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC) is not made out, hence, custody

of the accused is not warranted in the present case. He has apprised the

Court that though all the accused are police officials, however, they are not

traceable and are absent from their duties as well.

To support his arguments learned counsel for UT, Chandigarh

has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  S.Senthil

Kumar vs. State of Tamilnadu,  2022(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC)

257; Vishwanath Biradar vs. Deepika and others, 2021(2) Apex Court

Judgments   (SC)   4;  M.C.   Abraham   and   another   vs.   State   of

Maharasthra and others, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 452; State of West

Bengal vs. Sandip Biswas,  2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1024;  Sakiri Vasu vs.

State of UP and others, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 392 and judgments of

this Court in Hansa Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, Law Finder

Dhababprpribimi  b0b

Doc Id # 2004083.

6. Learned counsel for State of Punjab has affirmed the fact that

the investigation of the present FIR was transferred to UT, Chandigarh with

the consent of State of Punjab to resolve the controversy involved, however,

he has opposed the prayer made in the present petition to transfer the

investigation to CBI.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

with their able assistance. As deciphered, the occurrence in the present case

was taken place in the intervening night of 13.03.2025, however, the FIR

was registered on 22.03.2025. Interestingly, there is one more FIR i.e. FIR

No.65 dated 15.03.2025, under Section 194(2) of BNS, registered at Police

Station Civil Lines, Patiala, at the behest of complainant, Karanjot Singh,

who is the owner of the Dhaba. Admittedly, the complainant in the present

case is a serving Army Officer and the accused are the police officials. The

occurrence admittedly had taken place in the intervening night of

13/14.03.2025. As is evident from the medical record, the complainant and

his son suffered multiple injuries in the incident. There is no explanation for

lodging the FIR after a delay of eight days from the occurrence. However, as

apparent, the FIR No.65 regarding the same incident was registered by the

police two days thereafter, i.e. 15.03.2025. Perusal of this FIR, prima faice

shows that the same has been lodged in a premeditated manner so as to give

benefit to the accused, who are the officials of Punjab Police. Apprehending

no fair investigation, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way

OfFfYUYM5F12ININCT8HCNHEHGRFiBYAF1OJ6eFfYM-YM5FeB3Fapprehension of the

petitioner to be genuine, transferred the investigation from the State of

CRMM363622025 9

Punjab to UT, Chandigarh and directed the Director General of Police,

Chandigarh to entrust the investigation of the FIR to an IPS Officer posted

in U.T., Chandigarh, belonging to AGMUT Cadre, vide order dated

03.04.2025. Specific observations were made by this Court in concluding

the investigation. One of accused also filed anticipatory bail, wherein, this

Court observed the attending circumstances of the case exhaustively and in

no uncertain terms observed that the Investigating Agency is making out all

the efforts in protecting the accused being the police personnel. Status report

by way of affidavit was filed by giving undertaking that accused would be

arrested. However, the respondentState in emphatic terms had apprised that

the offence under Section 109 BNS (Section 307 IPC) has already been

deleted. So far progress in the investigation is concerned, except saying that

the investigation is in progress, there is no material to convince the Court

that the investigation is 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.

Needless to say that other offences in the FIR are also nonbailable, but the

Investigating Agency has no answer regarding its conduct in not proceeding

against the accused. The only answer given to the Court is that all the

accused are not traceable. The Court cannot lose the sight that all the

accused are serving police officials. The Court is conscious of the fact that,

how and in what manner, the investigation would be carried out, would lie in

12ININ T THNHEHG NCEN

the domain of the Investigating Agency, however, to ensure a free and fair

investigation, lies within the domain of the Court. 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.

From the overwhelming circumstances of the case, 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

AOFtAFeOF3MAJ63FeBteFOM'3FeB3F'Bt653NAB33eFYAFfYU3- 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

37Y-3M'3FtM-FAJdlYeFeB3FBOD3U3AAF'Bt653NAB33eFd3fO6e 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. A free and fair investigation is part of Constitution

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has dealt with the

similar issue. This Court gets support from the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Babubhai vs.State  Gujarat,  2010 (4) RCR (Criminal)

12ININ T THNHEHG NCCN

311.

“34. In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court has given

detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the

YM73AeY5teYOMFBtAFd33MFeOetUUwFOM3NAY-3-sFdYtA3-FtMd mala fide.

One party has been favoured by the investigating agency. The

natural corollary to this finding is that the other party has been

harassed in an unwarranted manner. Thus, the cause of the other

party has been prejudiced. The charge sheets filed by the

investigating agency in both the cases are against the same set

of accused. A charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation. If

the investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of the

view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid

charge sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be

precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice. In such a case the

court would simply try to decipher the truth only on the basis of

guess or conjunctures as the whole truth would not come before

it. It will be difficult for the court to determine how the incident

took place wherein three persons died and so many persons

including the complainant and accused got injured.

Not only

fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional

rights   guaranteed   under   Article   20   and   21   of   the

Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair,

transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement

of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted

to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner.

Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result

in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a

situation,   it   may   be   in   the   interest   of   justice   that

independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a

fresh investigation.”

Further Hon’ble Apex Court in Rubabbuddin   Sheikh’s

(AJD6tvsFB3U-FtAFJM-36nN

CRMM363622025 12

“48. In R.S.Sodhi vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1994 SC 38) on which

reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

writ petitioner, this Court observed :

"We have perused the events that have taken place since the

incidents but we are refraining from entering upon the

details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think

that since the accusations are directed against the local

police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the

investigation to an independent agency like the Central

Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the

relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an

independent agency is looking into the matter and that

would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility.

However, faithfully the local police may carry out the

investigation, the same will lack credibility since the

allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that

we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as

in the interest of justice, to entrust the investigation to the

Central Bureau of Investigation."

49. This decision clearly helps the writ petitioner for handing over

the investigation to the CBI Authorities or any other independent

agency. It is an admitted position in the present case that the

accusations are directed against the local police personnel in which

High Police officials of the State of Gujarat have been made the

accused. Therefore, it would be proper for the writ petitioner or

even the public to come forward to say that if the investigation

carried out by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat is done,

the writ petitioner and their family members would be highly

prejudiced and the investigation would also not come to an end

with proper finding and if investigation is allowed to be carried out

by the local police authorities, we feel that all concerned including

the relatives of the deceased may feel that investigation was not

proper and in that circumstances it would be fit and proper that the

writ petitioner and the relatives of the deceased should be assured

that an independent agency should look into the matter and that

would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility,

however, faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation,

particularly when the gross allegations have been made against the

12ININ T THNHEHG NC N

high police officials of the State of Gujarat and for which some

high police officials have already been taken into custody.

50. It is also well known that when police officials of the State

were involved in the crime and in fact they are investigating

the case, it would be proper and interest of justice would be

better served if the investigation is directed to be carried out

by the CBI Authorities, in that case CBI authorities would be

an appropriate authority to investigate the case.  In  Ramesh

Kumari vs. State (NCT Delhi) & Ors. [2006 (2) SCC 677], this

Court at Paragraph 8 observed :

"...................We are also of the view that since there is

allegation against the police personnel, the interest of

justice would be better served if the case is registered

and investigated by an independent agency like CBI."

……………..

60. In our view , the investigation of crime was carried out de

hors the mandate contained in the Cr.P.C. and particularly

Chapter XII containing Section 154-176 of the Code. There

had been no fresh FIR filed despite primary investigation No.

66 to make the same the basis for investigation and trial. In the

case of Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak vs. The State of Bihar

[(1972) 4 SCC 773], it was held that the object of FIR, from the

point of view of the investigating authorities, is to obtain

information   of   the  alleged  criminal  activity  so  as  to   take

suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party.

Admittedly, the FIR dated 16th of November, 2005 which was

filed following the alleged encounter was a fabricated one and,

therefore,   it   could   not   have   formed   the   basis  of   the   real

investigation to find the truth. Ms. Geeta Johri herself in her

report dated 7th of December, 2006 had conceded that ATS

was not a regular police station in which FIR should have been

filed.   It   was   further   submitted   that   the   investigation   and

charge sheet were silent on the motive behind the `killings'.

Juststicicete em tn9t

The only motive stated is fame. In the cases of Babu Lodhi vs.

State of UP (1987) 2 SCC 352 and Prem Kumar and Anr. v.

State of Bihar, (1995) 3 SCC 228, it was held that motive

assumes greater significance in case where the case rests on

circumstantial evidence, as in the present case. That apart,

from the Action Taken Reports submitted by the State Police

Authorities, we also find that the State Police Authorities of the

Gujarat had to take help from the other police officials of other

States,   namely,   Andhra   Pradesh   and   Rajasthan.   If   the

investigation is transferred to the CBI Authorities it would be

fair and proper that the other State police officials should also

help the CBI Authorities in coming to a final conclusion on the

allegations made by the writ petitioner and also on the offences

alleged to have committed by some of them. 

8. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the

anvil of law settled, this Court finds that there are no prospects of free and

fair investigation in the case by the Investigating Agency of UT,

Chandigarh. Lord Hewart, the then Chief Justice of England in the case of

Rex vs. Sussex Justices, (1924) 1 KB 256, laid down dictum “Justice must

not only be done, but must also be seem to be done”. It is a well settled

principle of law. 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.

At this stage, Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, who is present

in Court, accepts notice on behalf of CBI.

12ININ T THNHEHG NCGN

At this stage, learned counsel for UT, Chandigarh has submitted

that investigation of connected FIR No.65 dated 15.03.2025, under Section

194(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala was also

transferred to SIT headed by Manjeet IPS, Superintendent of Police

(Headquarter and Intelligence), UT, Chandigarh, vide order dated

01.05.2025. He, thus, submits that since both the FIRs are arising out of

same incident, investigation of FIR No.65 be also transferred alongwith the

investigation of the present FIR.

SIT headed by Manjeet, IPS, Superintendent of Police

(Headquarter and Intelligence), UT, Chandigarh is directed to hand over the

complete record of both the FIRs to CBI forthwith.

9. In view of the above detailed discussions, the present petition is

allowed.

       (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)

16.07.2025 JUDGE

sharmila

Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No