Court flags police complicity in drug trafficking case; terms investigation ‘shoddy, unprofessional’

Law enforcement’s complicity in drug trafficking has long been a subject of speculation in Punjab, but an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has confirmed the alarming role of police officials in sabotaging investigations and shielding the accused in a narcotics case. Among other things, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari’s bench took note of the fact that an investigating officer himself was an accused in another drugs case.

“The police officials concerned not only gave undue benefit to the petitioner by not arresting him for the last approximately two years, rather also allowed the material evidence to vanish,” Justice Tiwari asserted while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea to the accused in a cross-border heroin smuggling case.

The case has its genesis in an FIR registered at the Gharinda police station in Amritsar district in September 2021 under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Referring to an affidavit filed by Amritsar district (rural) SSP Charanjit Singh, Justice Tiwari asserted its perusal “made shocking revelations”. The initial investigating officer was himself an accused in the case registered at Sarai Amanat Khan police station in Tarn Taran district, with allegations that he was found in possession of 307 g of heroin.

He mentioned the name of the accused in the supplementary challan. But he did not record a daily diary report in this regard. He even helped the accused by not obtaining the relevant record from the telecommunication department. The record/data could, as such, not be retrieved after a lapse of approximately two years. The affidavit also revealed that the official/officer had retired. As such, appropriate departmental action had already been recommended against him.

A subsequent affidavit added fact-finding inquiries revealed negligence of police personnel, while performing their official duty. They failed to preserve the call detail record pertaining to the petitioner’s mobile phone.

“As a result now after lapse of two years, the investigating agency is unable to retrieve the record/data from the mobile service provider. Resultantly, departmental inquiry against police personnel, who remained associated in the shoddy and unprofessional investigation, has been recommended,” it added.

Yet another affidavit said the mobile surrendered by the petitioner at the time of joining investigation contained the data “only of January 16” indicating that he presented a new mobile just to mislead the investigation, instead of the instrument used by him in 2021.

The bench concluded that his conduct, reported in an additional affidavit, also coaxed the court to decline the relief of anticipatory bail.