Innocent persons being implicated: High court flags ‘two inconsistent versions’, asks Punjab DGP to act

Expressing concern over the implication of innocent persons by the police on their whims and fancies to settle their personal scores, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab Director-General of Police (DGP) to take action against erring cops in a case where the prosecution presented “two inconsistent versions”.

The rap and direction came as Justice HS Grewal granted regular bail to an accused in a case registered on May 28, 2025, under the provisions of the NDPS Act at the Rangar Nangal police station in the Batala police district of Gurdaspur.

The petitioner’s counsel, during the hearing, contended that the accused — apprehended while standing near a vehicle — was falsely implicated in the present case. In an attempt to buttress his contentions, the counsel also showed CCTV footage to the court, wherein a SUV was seen stationary.

The police party arrived and made two persons sit in another vehicle before driving off. It was followed by another police official in the SUV earlier standing stationary. Justice Grewal then asked the state to examine the CCTV footage and file a reply.

After going through the state’s stand, Justice Grewal found glaring contradictions. “On one hand, it is stated that during routine patrolling, the petitioner was apprehended while allegedly throwing the contraband out of his vehicle. On the other hand, it is claimed that acting upon prior secret information, the petitioner was apprehended and the contraband was recovered from a concealed cavity inside the bonnet of the vehicle, near the right tyre and fender adjacent to the water-cooling assembly.”

Referring to the contradictory versions, Justice Grewal asserted the story put forth by the prosecution appeared to be highly improbable and lacked credibility. “It is also a matter of concern that, nowadays, innocent persons are being implicated by the police on their whims and fancies in order to settle their personal scores,” the bench observed.

Justice Grewal added the CCTV footage examination made it clear that recovery was not made from the petitioner as both the versions appeared to be concocted “just to save the skin of the police officials”. The bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner was in custody for the last more than eight months.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, Justice Grewal allowed the petition while observing: “After hearing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this court has no other option but grant bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’.”

Before parting with the order, Justice Grewal directed the forwarding of the order to the DGP “to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring officers”.