Punjab: 971 drug accused still at large
More than six months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court was assured of a special drive to nab absconding accused in drug cases across Punjab, 971 accused remain at large in cases registered prior to August 31 last year.
Information to this effect was given before Justice NS Shekhawat’s Bench. As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the state counsel informed the court that 1,304 accused were to be arrested in drug cases registered before May 31, 2024, as per the previous status report. Another 542 accused were added between May 31 and August 31, 2024, taking the total number of absconding accused to 1,846. The counsel added 875 accused were taken into custody, leaving 971 still untraced. “It has also been mentioned that even instructions have been issued to all the field units/wing of the Punjab Police to make sincere and earnest efforts to arrest all accused, who are evading arrest even after a lapse of more than six months’’ period after registration of the FIR,” the Bench observed.
Taking a strong stance against the lack of progress and arrest of accused in drug cases, the high court had earlier asked the DGP to issue necessary directions to all SSPs to monitor probe progress in such matters. He was also asked to elaborate on drug cases where the accused have not been arrested for more than six months.
The Bench had ordered that the accused not arrested within reasonable time period should immediately be declared proclaimed offenders and their properties attached. The direction came on an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused not arrested for the last 11 months.
The court observed the police was not only had legal obligation to arrest the accused but also to initiate the PO proceedings and attach properties. But surprisingly such efforts were not made by the investigating officers/station house officers of 19 police stations in the district, clearly reflecting that the higher police officials there had not supervised the investigation of these drug cases. The matter was dismissed as infructuous after the state counsel submitted that the petitioner had already been arrested in the present case.
