The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked Punjab to undertake a top-level review of police recruitment and manpower requirements amid concerns that a shortage of personnel is hampering the progress of narcotics trials.
The direction by Justice Sanjay Vashisth came after deliberations with senior Punjab government officials, during which the court was informed that a shortage of police personnel, coupled with a rapidly increasing number of cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, appeared to be at the root of persistent delays in trials.
The Bench was hearing a bail matter arising out of a 2023 heroin recovery case, in which the court had earlier expressed concern over repeated non-appearance of official witnesses in drug cases and sought an explanation from Punjab.
At the onset, an affidavit filed by Praveen Kumar Sinha, IPS, Special Director-General of Police (Law and Order), was placed before Justice Vashisth’s Bench, along with the data and details collected from the Anti-Narcotic Task Force.
Recording the outcome of the discussions, Justice Vashisth observed: “During the course of deliberations with State counsel and Praveen Kumar Sinha, IPS, it transpired that the core issue pertains to the shortage of police officers/personnel, whereas number of cases registered under the NDPS Act in the State of Punjab is increasing rapidly.”
The court asserted it was, as such, expected that the issue concerning recruitment of police officials and augmentation of the police force “be considered at the highest level, so as to ensure availability of adequate police personnel and to avoid their absence from Court proceedings, particularly for deposition in NDPS Act cases, on account of engagement in other official duties.”
Justice Vashisth directed that the matter be examined at the highest level with the assistance of the Advocate-General, Additional Advocate-General and the Special DGP (Law and Order). Fixing the matter for further hearing on July 31, the Bench asked the State to apprise the court of the outcome of the deliberations.
Background: Bail denied in 12.4 kg heroin recovery case
The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on August 9, 2023, at Lopoke police station in Amritsar, under the provisions of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, 12.400 kilograms of heroin was recovered from a vehicle allegedly being driven by the accused.
The first bail petition filed by the accused was withdrawn on February 24, 2025, when the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings. His second bail plea was dismissed on August 26, 2025, with the court noting the huge recovery and reiterating the earlier direction for expeditious trial.
The accused subsequently filed a third bail petition, CRM-M-2543-2026, after the dismissal of his second plea. The High Court again declined bail on May 6, 2026, keeping in view the commercial quantity involved.
During the hearing, the counsel for the accused, however, pointed out that not a single prosecution witness was examined despite the High Court’s earlier directions. The court was informed that none out of 10 prosecution witnesses had entered the witness box.
Trial court’s explanation revealed repeated failure to secure witnesses
Taking serious note of the situation, Justice Vashisth, on May 19, called for an explanation from the trial court regarding the delay in the trial despite directions issued more than a year earlier. The explanation forwarded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, revealed that repeated efforts to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses had failed.
Referring to the explanation, the High Court observed: “efforts made by Trial Court regarding summoning of the prosecution witnesses right from 04.07.2025, failed on each and every date till now”. The court then linked the issue to the larger challenge of ensuring effective prosecution in narcotics cases.
Court questions effectiveness of anti-drug campaign
In its May 19 order, Justice Vashisth made pointed observations regarding the State’s anti-drug campaign and the repeated absence of police witnesses in NDPS trials. “The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot ignore that Punjab Government has spread out an impression of ‘Yudh Nasheyan Virudh’ (War Against Drugs), with regard to drug menace and it has been ensured to a common man in the State by developing an impression that situation would be brought back to normalcy. But this Court experiences almost on daily basis that Courts, including High Court, are constrained to release accused on bail in many serious NDPS cases, because of nonappearance of official witnesses, especially from Police Department,” the Bench observed.
Referring to the case at hand, Justice Vashisth noted that the recovery was “huge” and observed that the accused was alleged to have connections with Pakistani smugglers.
Earlier directions on non-appearance of police witnesses
The latest proceedings also stem from a common order passed by Justice Vashisth on May 11, while dismissing a bunch of NDPS bail petitions. The Bench in the order had observed: “This Court deems it appropriate to observe that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, trials are often delayed on account of non-appearance of official witnesses, which subsequently becomes a ground for seeking bail on the basis of prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial. Such a situation deserves to be curbed.”
The court had consequently directed Punjab Department of Home Affairs and Justice and the Director-General of Police to issue necessary instructions to the officials concerned, “who are ordinarily the material witnesses in such cases, to ensure their timely appearance before the trial court.”
The order had further warned that any official found adopting a lax, negligent, or casual approach in attending Court proceedings would be liable to face departmental inquiry and/or appropriate minor punishment at the initial stage itself. The trial courts were also directed to expedite NDPS trials and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Court had also warned of summoning the DGP. On May 19, while reviewing compliance with the directions, Justice Vashisth had expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of police personnel whose absence was delaying trials.
“This Court is firm in its view that conduct of such, police officers/officials, who are members of a most responsible and disciplined force in the State, is not of acceptance and such police officers/officials need to be reprimanded immediately,” Justice Vashisth had asserted.
The Bench had then directed the Punjab Government to explain what policy had been framed or steps taken in compliance with the May 11 directions, while adding “failing which, this Court, at the first instance, without any further delay, would seek presence of Director-General of Police, Punjab, for apprising of the correct position to the Court.”
Pursuant to those directions, Special DGP Praveen Kumar Sinha appeared before the High Court on May 26 and placed the State’s position on record, leading to the latest directions for a top-level examination of police recruitment and manpower requirements in relation to the growing burden of NDPS prosecutions.
