Punjab & Haryana High Court: Detaining Accused Indefinitely Due To Absence Of Police Witnesses Amounts To Abuse Of Power

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that detaining an accused indefinitely due to the absence of police witnesses amounts to abuse of process of law and displays disregard for judicial authority.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking bail in a case registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, "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. Detaining an accused indefinitely due to the sheer nonchalance of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process. 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 Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sandeep Arora, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Shiva Khurmi.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been in custody since March 23, 2023 and ever since charges were framed, yet, till date, only 3 out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. He submitted that despite the issuance of summons, including bailable and non-bailable warrants, the remaining prosecution witnesses, all of whom are police officials, have failed to appear. The Counsel averred that this pattern has persisted over no fewer than twenty seven hearings, rendering the progress of the trial virtually stagnant.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha, 2023 and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh to contend that an accused—particularly one with no prior criminal record—cannot be indefinitely incarcerated merely because the prosecution has been derelict in discharging its obligation. The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner is being penalised not for the alleged offence, but for the inexcusable apathy of the prosecution.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, noted that the Counsel for the State was unable to offer any cogent explanation for the repeated defaults of the prosecution witnesses and the vague assurance that “they shall now appear on every future date”, lacks both credibility and conviction given the past conduct.

Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, and is facing prosecution for the first time, it stressed 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 and it applies equally to trials under special statutes like the NDPS Act, howsoever grave the allegations may be.

"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. 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," the Court observed.

It was thus granted bail to the Petitioner. The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:083061)

Click here to read/ download Order