Wrong affidavit in bail plea: HC seeks DSP's explanation

Admonishing the filing of a factually incorrect affidavit in a bail matter under the NDPS Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a show-cause notice to a Haryana DSP, directing him to personally explain how “an affidavit containing false averments was submitted in the court”.

The direction came from Justice Surya Partap Singh while allowing a petition for regular bail in a case registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the BNS. The Bench asserted that Jagjeet Singh, DSP, HSNCB, Hisar, in his affidavit submitted that the petitioner had been convicted in a case arising out of an FIR registered in July 2021 at Barnala police station in Punjab.

“However, the copy of judgment placed on record by counsel for the petitioner shows that in fact in the mentioned case the petitioner has been acquitted. Thus, a show-cause notice be served upon the police officer calling him upon to appear in person and explain under what circumstances an affidavit containing false averments was submitted in the court. The reply be submitted within a period of three weeks,” Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted, while directing the listing of the matter on March 27 for compliance purposes.

The petitioner before the Bench was seeking bail in a case registered on August 3, 2024, at Tosham police station in Bhiwani district for offences under the NDPS Act and the BNS. Allowing the bail plea “without commenting anything on the merits of the case”, Justice Surya Partap Singh set out the factors weighing in the petitioner’s favour.

These included prolonged custody of “more than one year, six and half months”; clean antecedents except one case under Sections 186/353 of the IPC; recovery of contraband “marginally above the upper threshold fixed for non-commercial quantity”; and slow progress of trial with only three witnesses examined in over a year.

Justice Surya Partap Singh noted that “nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner,” that continued detention was not likely to serve any useful purpose. Besides this, there was nothing on record to suggest the petitioner would tamper with evidence or not cooperate with trial if released.