Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, December 1
Just over two months after Director-General of Police was asked to look into pending cases where efforts were not being made to ensure early deposition by police officials appearing as prosecution witnesses, the top cop has stated that initiation of disciplinary proceedings had been recommended against the defaulters.
As third application for regular bail filed by an accused in a drugs case came up for hearing before Justice Avneesh Jhingan, an affidavit by DGP Gaurav Yadav was placed before the Bench. Among other things, it said six official witnesses had deposed in the trial, while four police officials had defaulted in getting their evidence recorded.
Yadav added that initiation of disciplinary proceedings had been recommended against them. The state counsel, on instructions, also submitted that earnest efforts would be made to conclude the prosecution evidence by February end.
In his petition against the state of Punjab, Lalit Kumar was seeking bail in a case registered on April 2, 2020, under the provisions of the NDPS Act and Section 188 of the IPC at Jandiala police station in Amritsar district. One of the grounds for seeking bail was that the trial was not proceeding at a decent pace.
Taking up the matter on September 19, Justice Jhingan observed the petitioner was apprehended on April 2, 2020, in Amritsar. Earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer at a later stage. His counsel’s submission was that the petitioner was not involved in any other case and the trial was progressing at a snail pace.
Justice Jhingan also recorded the state counsel’s contention that only two of the total 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined. He further submitted that all prosecution witnesses were police officials. The Bench observed the court while dealing with the regular bail petitions was informed that there were specific instructions to ensure the early depositions of official witnesses in cases relating to the Act. Speedy trial was a must to maintain balance between stringent provisions of the Act and rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the DGP’s affidavit filed pursuant to the directions and the state counsel’s submission, Justice Jhingan disposed of the matter. “There is no doubt that in case a request is made before the court concerned for accommodating the date for examining the prosecution witnesses, the same would be considered in accordance with law,” Justice Jhingan concluded.