HC summons Fatehabad SP for explanation after cops fail to testify despite bailable warrants

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Fatehabad Superintendent of Police to appear in person with an explanatory affidavit on July 14 after observing that serving police officials, summoned as prosecution witnesses, failed to appear before the trial court on multiple occasions in a drugs case, thereby delaying the trial while the accused remained in custody. The direction came after Justice Sumeet Goel described the situation as “inexplicable.”

As the issue came up for resumed hearing, Justice Goel referred to orders dated April 3, 2024, and May 17, 2025, passed by the trial court, observing that a perusal of these orders reflected that “the official witnesses — who are serving police officials — did not appear for having their testimony recorded on account of which bailable warrants were issued against them.”

Justice Goel further noted that the bailable warrants could not be served “albeit they are serving police officials.” Referring to the effect of their non-appearance, the Bench asserted that the trial appeared to be “procrastinating whereas the petitioner-accused is languishing in gaol.”

Before parting with the order, Justice Goel directed the officer to remain present with the “explanatory affidavit.”

This is not the first time the high court has taken note of official witnesses failing to depose before the courts. A Bench had earlier asserted that the high court had witnessed, in numerous cases — especially under the NDPS Act — that delays occurred due to unexplained reasons on the prosecution’s part. Not only were repeated summons issued to official witnesses and police officials, including investigating officers, but often even bailable and non-bailable warrants had to be issued against them.

The trial court, on multiple occasions, were compelled to issue summons and warrants repeatedly against official witnesses who themselves set the criminal law into motion, resulting in delays caused by the prosecution.

“Right to speedy trial is a part of the Fundamental Rights contained under Part III of the Constitution of India, and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be scuttled because of such conduct of the prosecution by not deposing before the Court for number of years, resulting in the delay of the trial and prejudicing the rights of the accused guaranteed under the Constitution,” the Bench had earlier observed.

Haryana Tribune