'Abdication Of Duty': High Court Summons Haryana DGP To Explain Laxity Of Police Witnesses Absenting From Trial In NDPS Cases
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Director General of Police, Haryana to remain personally present before it and explain why police officials cited as prosecution witnesses in NDPS cases are repeatedly failing to appear before trial Courts despite warrants being issued against them.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It has been repeatedly observed that official witnesses in...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Director General of Police, Haryana to remain personally present before it and explain why police officials cited as prosecution witnesses in NDPS cases are repeatedly failing to appear before trial Courts despite warrants being issued against them.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "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 bailable warrants and, in numerous instances, even non-bailable warrants. Alarmingly, there exist several cases where even bailable warrants remain unexecuted for extended periods, resulting in routine adjournments of trials under the NDPS Act solely on this count."
The Court remarked, this state of affairs reflects a deeply disturbing and systemic lapse in the prosecutorial mechanism, whereby "the trial is stalled indefinitely due to the indifference or willful non-cooperation of official witnesses."
Justice Goel opined, "Such conduct not only frustrates the right of the accused—whether incarcerated or on bail—to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also gravely undermines the administration of criminal justice."
Abdication Of Duty
The Court observed that the abdication of duty by official witnesses, who are employees of the State, erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system and emboldens criminal elements by showcasing prosecutorial apathy. It sets a dangerous precedent where procedural laxity takes precedence over judicial efficacy.
"The resultant delay compromises deterrence and enables the recycling of narcotic offenders back into society during pendency of trial and obstructs the overarching objective of the NDPS Act—namely, the containment of the menace of drug trafficking and substance abuse. In effect, such dereliction by State officials, especially serving police officials, amounts to an affront to both rule of law and societal welfare. Senior police officials—in particular, at the helm of the police force at the district level, i.e. the concerned SSP/SP are also under a bounden duty to monitor the conduct of police officials and ensure their presence for tendering evidence before the concerned trial Court," it added.
Court Finds Itself Unable To Turn A Nelson's Eye
The Court said that the "seeming abdication" of duty by the senior police officials, by not paying any heed to this conduct of police officials, under their supervision, is, thus, a malady to which this Court finds itself unable to turn a nelson's eye.
These observations were made while hearing the second bail petition filed by Prem Singh, who is facing prosecution in an FIR registered at GRP Ambala Cantt under Section 21-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 29 of the Act was subsequently added to the FIR.
Despite 19 prosecution witnesses having been cited, none had been examined till the date of the High Court's order.
"The trial has repeatedly issued bailable warrants against the witnesses, who are none-else, but police officials, but yet the said witnesses have not been brought forward for recording their testimony before the trial Court," the Court observed.
The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since January 24, 2025 and that none of the 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
It emphasised that even in cases involving commercial quantity, where Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail, the statutory embargo cannot be used to justify indefinite incarceration where the trial is unduly delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused.
The Court accordingly ordered the petitioner's release on interim regular bail till the next date of hearing, subject to certain conditions.
Case Title: Prem Singh v. State of Haryana
Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate and
Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.