HC seeks clarity on state policy for timely police testimony in trials

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked Haryana to clarify whether its Director General of Police has issued general instructions or advisory to ensure timely deposition of police officials before the trial courts, especially in drugs cases.

The query came barely a week after the high court summoned the Fatehabad SP to appear in person with an explanatory affidavit. The order was passed after Justice Sumeet Goel described as “inexplicable” the repeated failure of serving police officials, summoned as prosecution witnesses, to appear before the trial court in a drugs case stalling the proceedings while the accused remained in custody.

It came after Justice Goel perused an affidavit filed in the matter by Fatehabad SP Siddhant Jain. After perusing the affidavit, the Bench asked the state counsel if any overarching directive existed from the state DGP for addressing the problem of official witnesses not appearing for testimony despite being instrumental in initiating criminal proceedings.

The state counsel, in response, sought time to file an additional affidavit from Fatehabad SP, clarifying the facts. The high court permitted the request and listed the matter for further hearing on July 22, while directing the SP to appear through videoconferencing on the next date.

Justice Goel, on the previous date of hearing, had referred to orders dated April 3, 2024, and May 17, 2025, passed by the trial court, while observing that its perusal 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 had 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 jail.”

This is not the first time the high court has flagged official witnesses shirking court appearances. A Bench had earlier observed that in numerous cases under the NDPS Act, delays stem from unexplained prosecution lapses. Repeated summons, and even bailable and non-bailable warrants, have had to be issued against official witnesses and investigating officers, causing trials to drag on unnecessarily.

Witness absenteeism by police

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned whether Haryana’s DGP has issued general instructions to ensure timely appearance of police officials before trial courts, especially in NDPS (drugs) cases
• The issue arose after repeated failure of serving police officials to appear in court as prosecution witnesses, stalling trials and prolonging custody of the accused