The Punjab and Haryana High Court has deprecated the conduct of the Punjab prosecution agency after observing that “witnesses are still not coming forward or the accused are not produced by the jail authorities” and the state had itself enabled the petitioner-accused to press for bail once again.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth also directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Punjab Home Secretary and the ADGP (Jails), Punjab, “to consider it as a notice”, while warning that the court would be compelled to summon them to seek an explanation if such lapses by state agencies continued in similar serious offences.
Granting regular bail to the petitioner-accused in a drugs case, Justice Vashisth observed: “The conduct of the prosecution agency need to be deprecated, which is under the direct control of the Department of Home in the State of Punjab.”
The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than two years, 10 months and 22 days, while the trial was progressing at a “very low pace”. Of the 16 prosecution witnesses, only seven had been examined, with the remaining nine yet to testify.
“The petitioner cannot be detained in custody for indefinite period, untill, the charges are proved by deciding the fate of trial. Therefore, he be granted bail,” his counsel contended.
The court—during the hearing of the third bail plea filed by the accused—informed that an FIR in the case had been registered on August 26, 2023, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at a police station in Ludhiana.
His second bail petition was disposed of as not pressed after the trial court indicated that the trial was likely to conclude within six months. The counsel added neither did the prosecution witnesses appear before the trial court nor were the accused lodged in jail produced on time by the jail authorities, despite the assurance recorded in the High Court’s order dated October 27, 2025.
The court noted that a series of trial court orders fortified the petitioner’s contention regarding the repeated failure to secure the presence of witnesses and produce the accused. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the High Court held that, keeping in view “the overall facts and circumstances, nature of allegations, period of incarceration already undergone, and the stage of trial”, it deemed the matter “a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate or Duty Magistrate concerned, if he was not required in any other case.
The court, however, made it clear that the petitioner “shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.”