Back
's Failure to Brief Prosecutor Prompts DCP Summons by High Court
Court Cracks Down on Repeated Lapses by Investigating Officers in NDPS Bail Cases
In a sharp rebuke to the , the on Wednesday directed the concerned Deputy (DCP) to personally appear in court after noting that investigating officers repeatedly failed to brief the prosecutor in time for bail applications under the . Justice Girish Kathpalia warned that if the DCP does not appear or fails to brief the prosecutor before the next hearing, it would be assumed that the State wants the accused released on bail.
Case Background
The court was hearing two bail applications—one filed by and another by —both registered at for offences under . The matters had been pending before different benches since before being transferred to Justice Kathpalia’s court.
Notably, a co-accused, Ashwani Kumar, was granted bail by the same court on , in an order that highlighted circumstances suggesting —a factor the court found relevant to the present cases.
Prosecution Left Helpless
The Additional Public Prosecutor, , expressed anguish that despite the bail applications being old and pending for months, the investigating officer had not met him to brief the case before the matters were called. This left the prosecution unable to effectively oppose the bail pleas.
Justice Kathpalia observed, “These are yet another instances of how the seems to be treating the issue of .” The court noted that the prosecutor’s inability to address the court stemmed directly from the investigating officer’s failure to provide timely briefs, despite repeated directions.
Legal Analysis and Options Before the Court
The court weighed two options: either grant bail forthwith because the prosecution was unable to oppose it, or adjourn the matter again, adding to its . However, Justice Kathpalia remarked, “Even if these matters are adjourned, there appears to be no reason to hope that on the next date the IO shall brief the prosecutor in time.”
Concluding that adjournment would be futile, the court directed the concerned DCP to personally appear on the next date, , after briefing the prosecutor on the investigating agency’s stand regarding the bail applications. The court further warned that would be treated as the State .
Key Observations
- “These are yet another instances of how the seems to be treating the issue of .”
- “One option for this Court is to to both accused persons because prosecution is unable to oppose these bails. The other option is to adjourn these matters again and add to the period of its .”
- “If on the next date, the concerned DCP does not appear or does not brief the prosecutor beforehand, it shall be assumed that the State wants both accused persons to be released on bail forthwith.”
Court’s Decision
Justice Kathpalia ordered the matter to be re-listed on , in the advance list. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the to ensure compliance. The court’s strong stance underscores the judiciary’s concern over procedural lapses that directly impact the liberty of undertrial prisoners, sending a clear message that such negligence will not be tolerated.
