TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Punjab Police get HC rap over ‘habitual’ failure of cops to depose in drug cases

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

In a major embarrassment for the Punjab Police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the habitual failure of prosecution witnesses, primarily police officials, to depose before trial courts in drug-related cases under the NDPS Act was “no longer an aberration but has become the norm”.

Advertisement

Calling for prompt action in the matter, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul “yet again directed the state to take immediate corrective measures to ensure that such complaints regarding the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses in cases under the NDPS Act do not arise in the future”.

Advertisement

The order was also directed to be forwarded to the DGP, and Financial Commissioner (Home), with instructions to issue appropriate directions to officers concerned and ensure forthwith adoption of necessary steps to prevent any further delays in NDPS trials.

The Bench was hearing second regular bail petition by an accused in a case registered on May 10, 2023, under the NDPS Act at a police station in Moga district. Justice Kaul asserted that such delays were paving way for the accused to seek bail solely due to the prosecution’s inability to ensure the presence of its own witnesses.

Justice Kaul added that repeated assurances given by the state counsel against surfacing of such complaints had proved hollow.

Advertisement

Emphasising that the right to a fair and speedy trial was not merely a theoretical concept but a fundamental constitutional right, Justice Kaul pointed out that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that prolonged detention of an accused, when the delay was attributable to the prosecution, was an affront to Article 21 of the Constitution.

Taking a critical view of the state’s handling of NDPS cases, the court observed: “The state cannot, on the one hand, demonstrate complete laxity in prosecuting accused in NDPS cases and, on the other, strenuously oppose bail petitions when the delay in trial is solely due to its own failings.”

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement