Back
grants bail to Naseeb Singh, summons DGP over trial delay
Chandigarh, – The has granted to an accused in a major heroin seizure case, while simultaneously summoning the state’s Director General of Police to explain a : police officers repeatedly fail to appear as witnesses, paralyzing trials under the .
A Heroin Case, A Stalled Trial
The case stems from FIR No. 39 registered on , at , under . The petitioner, Naseeb Singh, was arrested on the same day after police allegedly recovered 2 kg and 488 grams of heroin. Despite the charge sheet being filed on , the trial has made no headway: none of the 16 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has been in custody for over 17 months, prompting a second bail petition under .
Systemic Lapses Exposed
Arguing for bail, pointed out that the trial was delayed not by the accused but by the prosecution’s own witnesses—serving police officials—who failed to appear despite repeated (NBWs). “Zimni orders from show that even NBWs have not been executed, and the court is forced to adjourn,” the bench noted. The State, relying on an affidavit by Deputy Superintendent of Police Sukhwinder Singh, opposed bail citing the seriousness of the offense and the rigors of .
Justice Sumeet Goel, however, refused to let override . He observed that the delay was entirely attributable to the non-cooperation of official witnesses, turning the trial into a “spectacle of the court repeatedly summoning a public servant to discharge a duty he is already legally bound to perform.”
Right to vs. Statutory Barriers
In a detailed legal analysis, the High Court drew from a string of precedents—including the ’s landmark rulings in , , and —to emphasize that the under cannot be subordinated to the stringent conditions of . “Prolonged incarceration without justifiable cause risks transforming into ,” the Court remarked, citing its own earlier judgment in .
Holding that the trial court has “repeatedly issued NBWs against police witnesses, yet they have not been brought forward,” Justice Goel concluded that the under Section 37 must give way where the delay is caused by the prosecution itself.
“Judicial Time Spent on Securing Attendance”
The judgment did not stop at granting bail. Invoking its under , the Court directed the , to appear in person on the next hearing date () to explain why police witnesses in NDPS cases are routinely absent. “This state of affairs reflects a deeply disturbing and in the ,” the Court wrote. “When the process issued by the court repeatedly fails to secure attendance, the issue is no longer an isolated administrative lapse but a serious .”
Bail Granted with Strict Conditions
Naseeb Singh was ordered released on until the next hearing, subject to standard conditions: he must not tamper with evidence, commit any offense, or delay the trial. He is also required to deposit his passport with the trial court, provide his cellphone number to the investigating officer, and submit a monthly affidavit confirming he has not been involved in any further crime.
The order sends a strong signal that the judiciary will not remain passive when undermines . The DGP’s appearance in court next month could lead to broader directives to fix the systemic ailment of missing police witnesses—a problem that, as the Court noted, “does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system.”
