HC raps police for implicating ‘large number of accused’ in drug cases

In a major embarrassment to the police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped it for attempts to implicate more than a few individuals in drug cases without “slightest evidence” against them. Describing the approach as “deeply troubling and highly regrettable”, Justice Sandeep Moudgil also expressed astonishment at the manner in which such matters were being handled by investigating agencies.

“This court is truly astonished by the approach of the investigating agency in handling NDPS cases. It is concerning that they seem to be attempting to implicate a large number of individuals without possessing even the slightest evidence against them, which is deeply troubling and highly regrettable,” Justice Moudgil said.

The assertion came as Justice Moudgil granted anticipatory bail to Mandeep Kaur in a case registered on January 27 under the provisions of the NDPS Act at the Mahilpur police station in Hoshiarpur district. The state claimed that the petitioner was named by an accused, but could not place before the Bench incriminating material to connect the petitioner with alleged contraband’s recovery.

The Bench asserted that the petitioner had been implicated solely on the basis of “disclosure”, while nothing was recovered from her. “She appears to be falsely accused due to internal political rivalry, which is highly questionable,” the court added.

Issuing a stern warning, Justice Moudgil asserted that an investigating agency was required to act “with utmost diligence,” while observing that “implicating an individual in any case directly impacts their fundamental right to life and liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution”.

Taking into account the “legislative interdict” and shift in the sentencing policy, the liberalisation of the rigid conditions governing the grant of bail and the state’s failure to come out with incriminating material against the petitioner to connect her with the alleged recovery, Justice Moudgil asserted she could not be permitted to languish in jail as a matter of penalty.

“When it is to be found whether she can be tried under the NDPS Act during the trial of the case when prima facie no allegations exist against the petitioner, I am of the view that totality of circumstances warrant that the petitioner-accused be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail,” Justice Moudgil added.

The Bench also took note of the petitioner’s bona fide intention to cooperate in the investigation. “This court finds no reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail, wherein the petitioner has bona fide intentions and is willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the investigating agency within the stipulated time period.”

Punjab