Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M Nos. 22271, 37804 of 2023, CRM-M No. 18507 of 2022
Decided On : 28-08-2023
Prosecution Misconduct - Criminal Trials - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22 - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Section 21 - Section 29 - Section 61 - Section 37 - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Circular No. 1/2023 dated 06.02.2023 - Circular dated 30.11.2022 - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [22, 29, 61, 37, 439 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the lackadaisical conduct of the prosecution in criminal cases, particularly in the delay in trials and the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. The court highlighted the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and circulars issued to ensure timely appearance of police officials as prosecution witnesses, and the consequences for non-compliance. The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the SOP and circulars to expedite trials and prevent delays.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail due to the delay in trial, with not a single prosecution witness examined after 3 years and 5 months of incarceration. The court found a pattern of adjournments and non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, leading to prolonged detention of the under-trial. The petitioner was involved in a case of chance recovery of heroin and had been in custody for over 4 years and 8 months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the delay in trial and non-appearance of prosecution witnesses to be unjustifiable, leading to the petitioner's prolonged detention. The court noted the lack of compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the slow pace of the trial. The court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that his release would not pose a threat to society and imposing conditions to ensure his availability and compliance with the law.
Issues: Delay in trial, non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, compliance with NDPS Act provisions, and the petitioner's prolonged detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail to the petitioner due to the unjustifiable delay in trial, non-compliance with NDPS Act provisions, and the lack of threat posed by the petitioner's release. The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and circulars to expedite trials and prevent delays.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of justification for his prolonged detention and imposing conditions to ensure his availability and compliance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. Lackadaisical manner and, the nonchalant telling tale of the conduct, or rather the misconduct, of prosecution in the criminal cases before Courts in State of Punjab, thereby inordinately delaying the trials on one hand, while the under-trials, on the other hand, continue to languish in jail for long periods, is borne out from the orders dated 20.02.2023 read with 14.03.2023, passed earlier by a coordinate Bench of this Court, then seized of the matter. Being apposite, same are reproduced herein-below:
“The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 56 dated 07.09.2018 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station City-I Sangrur, District Sangrur.
One of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner to seek bail is the delay in the petitioner's trial.
Perusal of the interim orders passed by the trial court reveals that till date, even after the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 03 years, 05 months and 10 days, examination of not even one prosecution witness is complete. Ironically, all the witnesses of the prosecution are police officers. As per the record, on 06.04.2022, 11.05.2022, 01.06.2022, 05.07.2022, 02.08.2022, 13.09.2022, 04.10.2022, 11.11.2022, 21.12.2022 and 01.02.2023, the trial court has repeatedly passed orders seeking the attendance of PW - Head Constable Bhupinder Singh. In several of the aforereferred orders bailable warrants have also been issued to secure the attendance of Head Constable Bhupinder Singh who, in spite of having been repeatedly served has failed to put in appearance. In such a situation, instead of taking coercive steps to secure the witness's attendance the trial court has continued to mechanically issue fresh bailable warrants.
Before the adjourned date, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur is directed to file a report as to why in spite of several circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab in this regard, in spite of service of bailable warrants, Head Constable Bhupinder Singh has not bothered to appear before the trial court.
The District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur shall also examine the record and file a report with regard to the passing of repeated “mechanical orders” by the Special Court at Sangrur.
Adjourned to 14.03.2023.
To be taken up in the urgent list.”
Order dated 14.03.2023
In terms of the afore quoted order, the Senior Superintendent of Police. Sangrur (for short the SSP) and District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur have filed their respective reports which are ordered to be taken on record.
As per the SSP's affidavit, Constable Bhupinder Singh and ASI Ravel Singh had been repeatedly served to appear in the petitioner's trial but they did not and therefore, they are being departmentally proceeded against. On the adjourned date, the charge-sheet, if any, served upon these two officials shall be placed on the record.
The SSP's affidavit further goes on to state that to monitor attendance of police officials who are cited as prosecution witnesses a Prosecution Cell has been created in the District Court premises at Sangrur which is headed by Inspector Jarnail Singh along with ASI Ranjit Singh and ASI Harbhajan Singh as its members. A perusal of the orders of the trial court dated 01.02.2023 and 22.02.2023 reveal that in spite of service the summoned police officials have not appeared in the petitioner's trial. The SSP, Sangrur is directed to consider negligence, if any, on the part of the aforesaid members of the Prosecution Cell and file a report before the adjourned date.
The afore inaction on the part of the police officials to appear as prosecution witnesses also violates Circular dated 06.02.2023 of the Director General of Police, Punjab (for short the DGP). As per Para-11 of the said Circula
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and circulars to expedite trials, prevent delays, and ensure timely appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the application of bail provisions under Section 36 and 37 of the NDPS ....
Prolonged detention without trial infringes the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
