NDPS Act | Detaining Accused Indefinitely Due To Witness Absence Is Abuse Of Process | Punjab And Haryana High Court Grants Bail After 27 Defunct Hearings | Court Rebukes Prosecution For Repeated Defaults
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, on 10 July 2025, granted bail to a petitioner who had been in custody for over two years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Despite the serious nature of the charges and the classification of the contraband as a commercial quantity, the Court allowed the bail on the ground that the delay in trial was entirely attributable to the prosecution. The Court held that repeated non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, despite summons and warrants, cannot be allowed to trample upon the constitutional safeguard of a speedy trial and ordered the Director General of Police to ensure witness compliance in future trials.
The matter concerned a second bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the concession of bail in an FIR registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The FIR, bearing No. 74 dated 29.07.2019, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The petitioner was in custody since 23 March 2023, the same date on which charges were framed in the trial court.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that since the date of framing of charges, the trial had seen minimal progress. Specifically, out of the sixteen prosecution witnesses cited, only three had been examined over a period covering twenty-seven hearings. The petitioner argued that despite issuance of both bailable and non-bailable warrants, the remaining witnesses—who were all police officials—had not appeared before the trial court.
The petitioner’s counsel supported his argument with references to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533] and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022], to state that an accused, especially one with no prior criminal record, cannot be subjected to indefinite incarceration due to inaction or apathy of the prosecution.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail plea citing the nature and quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered—1.540 kilograms of Tramadol—which qualifies as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, thereby invoking the rigours of Section 37. However, the State did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had been in custody since March 2023 and confirmed that trial progress was stalled primarily due to the absence of prosecution witnesses. The State also conceded that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents and was facing prosecution for the first time.
The Court stated in no uncertain terms that "The right to a speedy and fair trial is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It applies equally to trials under special statutes like the NDPS Act, howsoever grave the allegations may be."
Addressing the pattern of witness absence, the Court recorded: "What stares glaringly from the record is a clear pattern of neglect and indifference on the part of the prosecution witnesses, who, despite repeated judicial orders, have failed to honour summons and warrants."
The Court further observed: "That such conduct emanates from police officials—entrusted with the task of upholding the rule of law—is deeply concerning and unacceptable. It reflects complacency, which cannot be condoned."
Acknowledging the seriousness of drug offences, the Court noted: "The menace of drug trafficking is indeed a grave threat, steadily corroding the social fabric and destroying countless lives. But the seriousness of the offence cannot become a licence to trample upon constitutional safeguards."
The Court added: "Detaining an accused indefinitely due to the sheer nonchalance of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process."
Regarding the conduct of the police officials as witnesses, the Court stated: "The repeated absence of police witnesses, despite coercive measures ordered by the Court, exhibits not just a casual approach but blatant disregard for judicial authority."
The Court stated that in view of the totality of facts and law: "this Court finds itself left with no option but to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner."
The Court directed that the petition be allowed and ordered that the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing bail or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate concerned. It stated: "The Court concerned shall be at liberty to impose any stringent or additional conditions upon the petitioner as may be deemed necessary to ensure that the petitioner does not misuse the concession of bail granted under this order and cooperates fully with the proceedings."
The judgment clarified: "It is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case."
It added: "Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same."
Further, the Court recorded its disapproval of the conduct of prosecution witnesses and issued a significant directive: "The Director General of Police, Punjab, is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate measures to ensure that police officers summoned as prosecution witnesses in criminal trials appear without fail."
Finally, the Court ordered: "A copy of this order be forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Punjab and Director General of Police, Punjab, for necessary compliance."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Jaswinderpal
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:083061
Case Number: CRM-M-18926-2025
Bench: Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
