Back
Summons Haryana DGP Over Police Witness Laxity in NDPS Cases
In a strongly worded order that highlights a within the criminal justice system, the has directed the , to appear personally and explain why police officials cited as prosecution witnesses in NDPS cases repeatedly fail to appear before trial courts despite the issuance of bailable and even . Justice Sumeet Goel, while hearing a second bail petition in the case of , expressed deep concern over the "alarming" pattern of by police witnesses, which has resulted in indefinite and prolonged incarceration of accused persons.
Exposed
Justice Goel noted that the problem is not isolated but reflects a
"deeply disturbing and
in the
."
The court observed that
"it has been repeatedly observed that official witnesses in NDPS cases—who, in most cases, comprise police personnel—are consistently failing to appear before the Court to tender their evidence, despite the issuance of
and, in numerous instances, even
. Alarmingly, there exist several cases where even
remain unexecuted for extended periods, resulting in routine
of trials under the
solely on this count."
The judge emphasized that this conduct not only violates the constitutional
guaranteed under Article 21 but also undermines the administration of criminal justice. The court remarked that
"such conduct not only frustrates the right of the accused—whether incarcerated or on bail—to a speedy trial as enshrined under
, but also gravely undermines the administration of criminal justice."
The High Court used strong language to describe the state of affairs, calling it an "
" by official witnesses who are employees of the state. According to the order, this
erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system and emboldens criminal elements by showcasing
.
"The resultant delay compromises
and enables the recycling of narcotic offenders back into society during pendency of trial and obstructs the overarching objective of the
—namely, the containment of the menace of drug trafficking and substance abuse,"
Justice Goel wrote.
The court further held that senior police officials, particularly at the district level such as SSPs and SPs, have a bounden duty to monitor the conduct of police officials and ensure their presence for tendering evidence. The failure to do so amounts to
"an
and societal welfare
."
The Case at Hand
These observations came in the context of the second bail petition filed by Prem Singh, who was accused in an FIR registered at under , with added subsequently. The court noted that despite 19 prosecution witnesses being cited, none had been examined until the date of the order. had been repeatedly issued against the witnesses—all police officials—but they remained unexecuted. The petitioner had been in custody since , and the trial had not progressed beyond the stage of witness summons.
The court rejected the argument that the stringent conditions under
for bail in
cases should automatically justify continued detention. It stated that
"the
cannot be used to justify
where the trial is unduly delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused."
Consequently, the court granted interim regular bail to Prem Singh until the next hearing, subject to conditions.
Legal Implications for Speedy Trial and NDPS Bail
The ruling carries significant implications for the interpretation of . Typically, in cases involving commercial quantities, courts are reluctant to grant bail due to the requiring satisfaction that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty. However, this judgment reinforces the principle that the under Article 21 cannot be subordinated to when delays are attributable to the prosecution.
Legal experts note that this decision could pave the way for similar bail applications across the state. It places the onus squarely on the police administration to ensure the presence of official witnesses, failing which courts may be forced to release accused individuals even in serious drug trafficking cases. The court's direction to the DGP to appear personally signals that for has reached its limit.
Impact on Criminal Justice Administration
The order underscores a broader malaise affecting trial courts across India: the non-appearance of police witnesses. This issue is particularly acute in NDPS cases, where the prosecution heavily relies on the testimony of the arresting officers and seizing witnesses. When these officers fail to appear, trials stall for months or years, leading to overcrowded jails and violation of fundamental rights.
Justice Goel's observation that the court
"finds itself unable to turn a nelson's eye"
to this malady suggests that the High Court may take further
, possibly requiring monitoring of witness attendance at the district level. The summons to the DGP is unprecedented in its directness and implies that the top police brass must answer for the conduct of their subordinates.
Conclusion
The has sent a clear message: the cannot be held hostage by the indifference of state officials. By summoning the DGP to explain the persistent failure of police witnesses to testify, the court has taken a proactive step toward restoring accountability in the criminal justice system. For defense lawyers and prosecutors alike, this judgment serves as a reminder that procedural laxity will no longer be tolerated. The ultimate impact will depend on whether the police leadership takes meaningful action to ensure the presence of witnesses, or whether further judicial orders are needed to enforce compliance.
