High court admonishes prosecution for ‘callous’ approach, grants bail in opium recovery case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has termed as “callous" the prosecution’s conduct in a 4-kg opium recovery case while granting bail to an accused. The court made it clear that the delay in trial proceedings due to the prosecution’s indifference could not justify the continued incarceration of the accused for an indefinite period.

“Looking at the callous approach of the prosecution, it is evident that the conclusion of the trial will take long for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period,” observed Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while allowing regular bail plea in an NDPS case registered at Mehna police station in Moga district.

The order comes at a time when the Punjab Police have issued a sweeping ultimatum to all district police chiefs and field officers to bring the availability of drugs to “zero” by May 31, warning that accountability will be fixed down to the SHO level. In sharp contrast to these aggressive directives, the courts are increasingly finding themselves compelled to grant bail to accused persons under the NDPS Act—not on merit, but due to the prosecution’s inertia in bringing cases to trial.

The high court only recently passed scathing remarks in another NDPS matter, stating that the habitual failure of prosecution witnesses—primarily police personnel—to appear in court had become the norm, not the exception. The court had ordered the state to take immediate corrective steps, observing that the real threat to drug prosecutions was the state’s own repeated default. “It is entirely unacceptable that the burden of this indifference should be borne by the accused, who—despite being undertrials—are made to endure prolonged incarceration without trial,” the judge asserted, while forwarding the order to the DGP and Financial Commissioner (Home) for urgent compliance.

Taking up the matter, Justice Moudgil observed that the custody certificate indicated four out of 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined, five had been given up and four remained. Referring to the apex court judgments and the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court asserted it formed part of a “reasonable, fair and just procedure”. Besides, the period of pre-conviction custody must remain as short as possible, taking into account the nature of allegations and available evidence.

Punjab