Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Interim Bail in NDPS Case, Summons DGP Over Police Witnesses Skipping Trial

Justice Sumeet Goel granted interim bail to an undertrial held for over 18 months under the NDPS Act and directed Haryana’s Director General of Police to appear personally to explain why police witnesses repeatedly defy trial court warrants.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 18 August 2026, granted interim regular bail to Prem Singh, an undertrial who had been in custody since 24 January 2025 in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, found that none of the 19 cited prosecution witnesses — all police officials — had been examined despite the trial court repeatedly issuing bailable warrants against them. The bench also directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to appear personally before the court on the next date of hearing, 1 September 2026, to explain the systemic failure of official witnesses to appear in NDPS trials.

The FIR and the Accused’s Custody

FIR No. 21, dated 24 January 2025, was registered at Police Station GRP Ambala Cantt., District Ambala, for offences punishable under Section 21-C of the NDPS Act, with Section 29 added subsequently. The FIR arose from the recovery of 80 strips—totalling 4,800 tablets—of Lomotil tablets containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride 2.5 mg and Atropine Sulphate 0.025 mg, with the total weight of the tablets (without strips) coming to 320 grams.

Prem Singh was arrested on 24 January 2025. A challan was filed on 24 June 2025. Nineteen prosecution witnesses were cited. As of the date of the order, not one had been examined. The present petition was his second attempt to secure bail; the first was dismissed as withdrawn on 19 November 2025.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Giri and Mr. Mohit Giri, argued that the petitioner had been in custody for more than one year and six months, that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, and that the delay in trial could not be attributed to the petitioner. The State, represented by Senior DAG Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, filed a reply by affidavit dated 17 August 2026, opposed the petition, and relied on Section 37 of the NDPS Act to argue that the rigours of that provision barred bail. A custody certificate dated 16 August 2025 was placed on record, noting the petitioner’s involvement in one additional case.

Trial Court Records Revealing Systematic Delay

Justice Goel examined the zimni orders of the trial court produced by the petitioner, specifically orders dated 15 December 2025, 4 February 2026, 6 March 2026, 20 April 2026, 2 June 2026, and 12 August 2026. The pattern was consistent: the trial court had issued bailable warrants against prosecution witnesses, who were police officials, yet none appeared to record their testimony. The court found that the delay was not of the petitioner’s making.

On the question of the petitioner’s involvement in one additional case as noted in the custody certificate, the bench held that this fact, standing alone, was not sufficient to deny bail when the circumstances of the FIR in question independently warranted release. The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586, a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477, and prior orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana (CRM-M No. 38822-2022) and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Speedy Trial, Article 21, and the Section 37 Threshold

The central legal question was whether the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act — which requires the court to be satisfied of twin conditions before granting bail in commercial quantity cases — could be overridden where trial delay was attributable entirely to the prosecution and police machinery.

Justice Goel drew on the ratio in the court’s own earlier judgment in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695), which had synthesised a line of Supreme Court authority including Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, 1980 (1) SCC 98; Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another, 1992 (1) SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 INSC 311; and several criminal appeals involving accused persons in NDPS matters from West Bengal, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh.

The Kulwinder judgment, quoted at length, held that the right to a speedy trial is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, that this right commences from the moment of arrest, and that it continues through investigation, trial, appeal, and revision. It observed that while Section 37 of the NDSS Act creates a stringent threshold, that threshold cannot be used to keep an accused behind bars for an inordinate period where the delay is neither attributable to the accused nor justified by the prosecution. In the court’s words from Kulwinder: “grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.”

The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s observation in Ranjan Dwivedi v. C.B.I., Through the Director General, 2012 (8) SCC 495, that the guarantee of a speedy trial serves a threefold purpose: protecting against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment, relieving the accused of anxiety arising from unresolved charges, and protecting against the loss of evidence or dimming of memory over time.

Police Witnesses and the DGP Direction

Beyond the bail question, Justice Goel addressed what he described as a systemic malady: official witnesses in NDPS cases, who are predominantly serving police personnel, consistently failing to appear in trial courts despite the issuance of bailable and, in some cases, non-bailable warrants.

The court noted that bailable warrants had remained unexecuted for extended periods in multiple cases, leading to routine adjournments of NDPS trials solely on this count. This, the court found, frustrates the Article 21 right of the accused to a speedy trial, undermines the administration of criminal justice, erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system, and directly obstructs the legislative objective of the NDPS Act in containing drug trafficking.

The bench invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, characterising them as “unbridled, unfettered and plenary” and directed at securing the ends of justice. It drew on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 AIR Supreme Court 3263, where the Supreme Court had held that a High Court, as a constitutional court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, cannot simply shut its eyes to grave lapses in the police or investigative machinery even when the proceeding before it is formally a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code.

The court held that senior police officers, particularly the SSP and SP at the district level, are under a duty to monitor the conduct of police officials under their supervision and ensure their attendance before trial courts as witnesses. The abdication of that duty, the court reasoned, was a matter it could not disregard.

Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Haryana, was directed to remain personally present in court on 1 September 2026 to explain the systemic failure of prosecution witnesses, especially police officials, to appear before trial courts in NDPS matters despite repeated warrants.

Conditions of Interim Bail

The court ordered Prem Singh’s release on interim regular bail until the next date of hearing, subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court or Duty Magistrate. The conditions imposed were:

• The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted.
• He shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
• He shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
• He shall not commit any offence while on bail.
• He shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial court.
• He shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer or SHO of the concerned police station and shall not change it without prior permission of the trial court or Illaqa Magistrate.
• He shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
• He shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit before the concerned trial court stating that he has not been involved in any offence after his release on bail.

The court stipulated that if the petitioner is found involved in any offence after enlargement, the State is mandated to move forthwith for cancellation of bail. The State was also at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach of any condition or upon showing other sufficient cause.

Order

Justice Sumeet Goel, by order dated 18 August 2026 in CRM-M-33449-2026 (O&M), directed:

1. Prem Singh to be released on interim regular bail until the next date of hearing, on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate, subject to the conditions set out in the order.
2. The Director General of Police, Haryana, to remain personally present in court on 1 September 2026 to explain the failure of police witnesses to appear in NDPS trial courts despite repeated issuance of bailable warrants.
3. The matter to be taken up in the urgent cause list on 1 September 2026.