Punjab Drug Menace: High Court Says If Trial Delayed Due To Absence Of Official Witness, State Can't Oppose Bail

Observing that continued absence of prosecution witnesses is alarming in NDPS cases, especially given the severe drug menace in Punjab region, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that "since the trial has been delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail."Previously, after facing High Court's wrath the Punjab Government in 2023 informed the Court that it has issued directions to the police officers to not seek more than one adjournment from the trial court for appearing as a witness in NDPS cases.In the present case, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "The continued absence of prosecution witnesses in such cases is alarming, especially given the severe drug menace in this region. If prosecution witnesses continue to be absent without valid reasons, it severely undermines the efforts purportedly being made to combat this menace."Furthermore, "since the trial has been delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner cannot be left to languish in custody indefinitely while awaiting the appearance of prosecution witnesses, as this would unquestionably violate his right to life and liberty, as well as his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," it added.Justice Kaul also noted that, It is well documented that in a number of cases, particularly those registered under the NDPS Act, accused have been granted bail by courts due to their prolonged incarceration resulting from the consistent non-appearance of prosecution witnesses."On account of this recurring issue, on an earlier occasion, this Court had directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab to appear and address the problem. The DGP had assured this Court that, moving forward, such complaints would cease and that prosecution witnesses, particularly police officials, would ensure their presence on each and every date before the trial Court in cases registered under the NDPS Act," the judge noted further.These observations were made while hearing a bail plea of one Manpreet Singh, accused of possessing 3 kgs of opium in his car in 2022. The FIR was registered against him under Sections 18, 18(b), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).Counsel for the petitioner argued that the after the charges were framed on 20.04.2023, the case had been repeatedly adjourned on account of the non-appearances of the prosecution witnesses, who in the instant case, are all police officials.Despite bailable warrants issued to secure the presence of the prosecution witnesses, none had appeared before the trial Court to get their evidence recorded, he added.Opposing the bail, the State counsel cited the huge recovery of 3 kgs of Opium from beneath the driver's seat of the car in which the petitioner was travelling.After hearing the submissions, the bench relied on Apex Court's decision in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 wherein "on account of the long incarceration of an accused, extended the concession of bail in a case under the NDPS Act."The Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody since September, 2022 and there is no foreseeable conclusion to the trial in the near future."Resultantly, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate," the Court held.Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent/State. Title: Manpreet Singh @ Koch v. State of PunjabCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 188Click here to read/download the order

Punjab Drug Menace: High Court Says If Trial Delayed Due To Absence Of Official Witness, State Can't Oppose Bail

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags