Punjab And Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by a Police Officer, in an First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126, 190, 191, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) in a Colonel’s assault case, a single judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara*, J., dismissed the application, citing prima facie involvement, gross misconduct, horrific nature of crime, crafty behaviour and cruelty on part of the accused by mercilessly beating the complainant and his son, causing both simple and grievous injuries.
Background
In the present case, an FIR was registered by the complainant, who was serving as a Colonel in the Indian Army and was posted in Delhi at the relevant time. On the night of the incident, the complainant and his son were standing outside their car, which was parked near a dhaba, and were eating. At some point, a Scorpio vehicle with red and blue blinkers on its roof arrived at the location. Approximately 7—8 individuals, including the accused, exited the vehicle and directed the complainant to move his car aside, threatening that his legs would be broken if he failed to comply.
The complainant responded that he would move the vehicle but objected to the inappropriate tone used. In response, one of the assailants punched him, causing him to lose consciousness. While he lay on the ground, the group continued to kick him. When his son attempted to intervene, he too was assaulted and beaten with fists and sticks, resulting in severe injuries.
Despite being informed that the complainant was an Army Colonel, the attackers seized his identity card and mobile phone. One of them allegedly stated that they had just returned from an encounter and that whoever survived could collect the ID card from the office of the ACP, Civil Lines, the next morning. As the complainant and his son attempted to leave the scene in their vehicle, the group again attacked them using sticks and iron rods.
Both the complainant and his son sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. However, despite the serious nature of the incident, the FIR was registered eight days after it occurred.
Prior to the registration of the above FIR filed by the complainant, two FIRs had already been lodged against him, one alleging that he had assaulted a police officer while in an intoxicated state over a parking dispute, and another filed by the dhaba owner alleging affray at the premises. Apprehending arrest in connection with the present case, the accused filed the instant application seeking anticipatory bail.
Analysis and Decision in Colonel assault case
The Court, while taking into consideration a video recording stated that prima facie it corroborated the complainant’s version of the incident.
After taking note of the medico-legal report of the complainant, the Court noted that the use of blunt weapons which was corroborated by the video recording clearly showing the use of Dandas. The Court pointed out that ‘danda’, as simple a weapon as it is, when used by trained officers can cause serious consequential damage to the target. In the present case, the Court emphasised that the impact of injuries caused by danda was so grievous that it would make danda fall under the category of dangerous weapons.
The Court ruled out any provocation from the side of the complainant. The Court further remarked that even if the complainant had wrongfully parked his vehicle, the correct step to be taken by the law enforcement officer is the issuance of a Challan and not the unmerciful furious beating meted out by the accused and other accused.
The Court observed that the present case involves gross misuse of emergency powers by the police. Further stating their actions to be inhumane, aggressive, arrogant, and reflective of their cruel mindset, highly uncharacteristic of what a police force of a democratic country like ours should represent.
The Court further stated that this kind of behavior by a few police officers’ fuels the narrative where the common man is deeply conditioned to be afraid of the police. According to the Court, the fact that the accused was made aware of the complainant being an active member of the armed forces and continued beating him is the most disturbing aspect of the case. Furthermore, the fact of non-registration of FIR was also worrisome.
The Court highlighted that cruelty is one of the most important factors in deciding a bail application. Once the courts decide on the presence of cruelty in the actions of the accused, they should not ordinarily grant bail unless satisfied otherwise. The Court held that the present case does not warrant the grant of bail.
Another aspect the Court noted was that the accused attempted to fabricate the evidence by getting treated at a private hospital. According to the Court, this crafty behavior by the police portrayed possession of unfettered power by the officers which was never the intent of legislature.
The Court concluded that there was no doubt that the accused and his accomplices were the aggressors and had assaulted the complainant and his son. Furthermore, no case of anticipatory bail was made out and the impact of the crime did not justify granting the same. Hence, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused in Colonel assault case.
[Ronnie Singh Salh v. State of Punjab., 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2584, decided on 23-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, GPS Ghuman, GS Ghuman, Arnav Ghai, R S Bagga, P.P. Mr Manish Bansal; Addl. P.P. Alankrit Bhardwaj; AAG, Punjab Ms Navreet Kaur Barnala
For the respondent: P.S. Ahluwalia, Veer Vikram Singh Mann, Harjot Waraich
