Failure Of Punjab Police Witnesses To Appear In NDPS Case On 11 Dates Leads High Court To Suspects Their "Unholy Nexus" With Accused

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the Punjab Government for its inaction and lackadaisical approach in curbing the drug menace in the State. The Court pointed out that accused persons under the NDPS Act have been repeatedly seeking bail, citing the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses who are police officials.

Justice Manjri Nehru Kaul said, "Despite repeated assurances having been given by the State that the matter would be looked into as to why prosecution witnesses especially in cases registered under the NDPS Act have been repeatedly absenting themselves before the Trial Court to get their evidence recorded, the situation has not improved, rather it has only worsened."

The Court further added that on each of the previous occasions when such like cases were brought to the notice of the Court, the Senior Superintendents of Police of the Districts concerned were asked to present themselves before the Court and an "assurance was given that in future no such thing would happen and strangely as and when this Court reprimanded the Senior Superintendents of Police, on the very next date before the Trial Court, the prosecution witnesses conveniently stepped into the witness box to get their evidence recorded."

Adding that the conduct of the police officials raises a big question mark about their competence, the Court said, "it give rise to some suspicion that there could be some unholy nexus between the accused facing trial under the NDPS Act and the police officials, to ensure on account of their long incarceration, the accused become eligible for being extended the concession of bail."

The Court said it is high time that the State "wakes up from its slumber" and takes effective remedial steps to streamline the working of the police force, more so, "when the menace of drugs has penetrated deep into the society and is spreading like termites."

Justice Kaul remarked that either the "Senior Superintendents of Police are ineffective and helpless or else the only inference which could be safely drawn is that such prosecution witnesses who are not putting in appearance before the Court to get their evidence recorded are enjoying tacit support of their superiors."

These observations came in response to the bail application filed under Sections  Section 439 of the CrPC in case under Sections 15 and 22(c) of the NDPS, lodged in 2021. The accused was booked for being in possession of 24,000 tablets of Tramadol along with 18 kgs of poppy husk.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that trial has not progressed and come to a standstill on account of the prosecution witnesses not stepping into the witness box to get their evidence recorded.

On the other hand, State counsel opposing the Bail pays for the dismissal of the petition in the wake of the huge recovery effected from the petitioner.

After hearing both the sides, the Court said, a perusal of the  orders of the Trial Court reveal that as many as 11 dates were fixed by the Trial Court for evidence and the prosecution witnesses, who are none other than the police officials, "did not care to show their faces in the Court for their evidence." It added that resultantly on September 25, bailable warrants were issued to procure the presence of one of the witnesses.

"This Court is constrained to observe that this is not for the first time that it has come to the notice of this Court that on account of the prosecution witnesses, especially in cases registered under the NDPS Act, not putting in appearance to get their evidence recorded before the Trial Court, the accused have been approaching this Court for being extended the concession of bail on account of their long incarceration," the Court noted.

In the present case, the bench said that since 2021 the petitioner is in custody and after charges were framed in May 2022, not even a single witness out of the 17 cited, has been examined till date. It depriving the petitioner from freedom without ensuring a swift trial for him would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to life and personal liberty, it added.

In the light of the above the Court granted the Bail, stating that, "the accused in the case in hand has already endured a substantial proportion of the likely sentence, if that were to happen..."

The Court further observed that, "police officials in not appearing before Trial Courts to record their evidence are abdicating their duty towards the State as well as towards the cause of justice, which is something the society can ill-afford. The writing is on the wall, and the ever increasing menace of drugs is staring us in the face, which we can ignore only at our own peril."

The bench also directed to send the copy of the order to  Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Punjab to look into the matter and to "take corrective measures."

Appearance: Gurmeet Kaur, Advocate andSrishti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 196