Punjab: HC summons top cop over police officers not appearing as witnesses

The court found that the petitioner accused Naseeb Singh is in custody for one year and five months whereas, none of the cited prosecution witnesses have been examined till date

The Punjab and Haryana high court has summoned director general of police (law and order) over police officials not appearing as witnesses in drugs cases despite lower courts issuing non-bailable warrants against them.

Section 37 bars bail in commercial quantity seizures of drugs. (HT File)

“This state of affairs reflects a deeply disturbing and systemic lapse in the prosecutorial mechanism, whereby the trial is stalled indefinitely due to the indifference or wilful non-cooperation of official witnesses. Such conduct not only frustrates the right of the accused—whether incarcerated or on bail—to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also gravely undermines the administration of criminal justice,” the bench of justice Sumeet Goel observed while hearing a second bail application from an accused in an FIR registered in March 2025 in Ferozepur in connection with recovery of 2 kg of heroin.

Section 37 bars bail in commercial quantity seizures of drugs. The SC, while dealing with Section 37 of NDPS Act, has laid down that before granting bail, the court has to have “reasonable grounds” for believing that accused is not guilty of offence that he has been charged and that he is unlikely to commit offence under NDPS Act while on bail again. The second condition is of granting opportunity to public prosecutor to oppose the bail.

The court termed the trend “deeply disconcerting” and added that disregard is such that, in a number of cases, the prosecuting agency is not able to effect the service/execution of these processes even against their serving officials.

The court concluded that the trial is unduly delayed, primarily on account of police officials not coming forward despite bailable warrants/non-bailable warrants and granted bail to the accused. “Alarmingly, there exist several cases where even bailable warrants remain unexecuted for extended periods, resulting in routine adjournments of trials under the NDPS Act solely on this count,” it recorded, adding that result of all this is that the trial is stalled, the accused is deprived of a timely adjudication, and the court is compelled to await the “convenience or indifference” of the very agency that had set the criminal law into motion.

It further recorded that the “abdication of duty” by official witnesses, who are employees of the state, erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system and emboldens criminal elements by showcasing prosecutorial apathy. “It sets a dangerous precedent where procedural laxity takes precedence over judicial efficacy. The resultant delay compromises deterrence and enables the recycling of narcotic offenders back into society during pendency of trial and obstructs the overarching objective of the NDPS Act,” it said, underlining that senior officers at district level are at a bounden duty to monitor the conduct of their subordinate police officials and ensure their presence for tendering evidence before the trial courts.

The court said that the authorities often act with urgency when registering an FIR, and arresting the accused. “Yet, once the case reaches trial, the same urgency frequently disappears. Presenting/filling of challan/final report does not conclude the responsibility of the prosecuting agency; it marks the beginning of its duty to diligently prosecute the case. When the process issued by the court, repeatedly, fails to secure attendance of official witness, the issue is no longer an isolated administrative lapse but reflects a serious institutional failure,” it recorded while summoning the top officer for September 21.