Introduction:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), after discovering that an earlier police status report had wrongly attributed seven additional criminal cases to him. The incorrect information, which included three alleged convictions, had formed the basis for dismissing his previous bail application. The Court took serious note of the police officials’ failure to verify the accused’s criminal antecedents and directed the senior police authorities to ensure that departmental proceedings against the responsible officials were concluded expeditiously.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth passed the order while considering the accused’s second application for regular bail. The petitioner had been in custody since February 26, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. The FIR invoked Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and Sections 345(3) and 238(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The controversy arose because the petitioner’s first bail application had been dismissed by the High Court on April 8, 2026. At that stage, the State had submitted a status report stating that seven other NDPS cases were registered against him between 2016 and 2024. According to the report, three of those cases had resulted in convictions, while the remaining four were pending trial. This criminal history was a significant consideration in the earlier bail proceedings.

The petitioner subsequently challenged the accuracy of the information placed before the Court. He maintained that, apart from the case in which he was then being prosecuted, he had been involved in only one earlier NDPS case, registered in 2008 at Police Station Phillaur. In that case, he had been convicted in 2011 and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. He denied being an accused in the other six cases mentioned in the earlier status report.

During the subsequent proceedings, the High Court examined the custody certificate and the records produced by the petitioner’s counsel. These documents indicated that the seven additional cases attributed to him in the earlier report had been wrongly mentioned. The State’s counsel also expressed serious concern over the incorrect information after obtaining instructions from the Station House Officer.

The matter assumed particular significance because the inaccurate report had not merely contained an administrative error. It had been placed before a constitutional court in proceedings directly concerning the petitioner’s personal liberty and had contributed to the rejection of his earlier request for bail.

The Court consequently sought an explanation regarding the responsibility of the police officials who had furnished the incorrect information. An affidavit filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police on November 4, 2026, acknowledged that the earlier status report had contained incorrect particulars because the relevant records had not been properly checked and verified. Departmental proceedings had already been initiated against the concerned officials.

Apart from examining the issue of the false criminal antecedents, the High Court considered the merits of the bail application, including the quantity of the substances allegedly recovered, the period of incarceration and the progress of the trial. It noted that only two of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the petitioner had remained in custody since February 2025.

The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it underscores the responsibility of police authorities to ensure that affidavits and status reports submitted before courts contain accurate and verified information, particularly when an accused person’s liberty is at stake. Second, it reiterates that prolonged pre-trial detention must be assessed in light of the progress of the proceedings and the overall circumstances of the case, rather than being prolonged indefinitely merely because the trial remains pending.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner sought regular bail on the ground that the criminal history attributed to him in the earlier proceedings was substantially incorrect. He contended that the previous bail application had been dismissed after the State informed the Court that seven other NDPS cases were registered against him, including three cases resulting in conviction. According to the petitioner, these particulars did not correspond to his actual criminal record.

In support of his submission, the petitioner pointed out that the custody certificate reflected only one earlier case against him, apart from the present prosecution. That case had been registered in 2008 at Police Station Phillaur under the NDPS Act. He had been convicted in 2011 and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The petitioner’s counsel also produced copies of the judgments and FIRs relating to the six other cases referred to in the earlier bail proceedings. The documents were relied upon to demonstrate that the petitioner was not an accused in those cases. The petitioner therefore argued that the earlier status report had materially misrepresented his criminal antecedents and that the incorrect information had adversely affected the consideration of his previous bail plea.

The petitioner also relied upon the fact that he had been in custody since February 26, 2025. Despite the passage of considerable time, the trial had made limited progress, with only two of the 14 prosecution witnesses examined. He contended that continued incarceration, in these circumstances, was not justified, particularly when the prosecution had not completed the examination of its witnesses.

The alleged recovery was another relevant consideration. According to the prosecution case, 150 tablets of Etizolam had been recovered in the case as a whole. The recovery allegedly attributed to the petitioner consisted of 30 tablets of Etizolam weighing 2.7 grams and 49 tablets of Tramadol. The petitioner relied on the fact that the stated weight of the Etizolam salt exceeded the prescribed commercial-quantity threshold of 2.5 grams by only 0.2 grams. The Court considered this circumstance while assessing the nature of the accusation and the overall case for bail.

The State’s position changed materially during the proceedings once the discrepancy in the criminal history was brought to its attention. On October 30, 2026, the Court examined the custody certificate and the documents produced by the petitioner’s counsel. The following day, the State counsel, acting on instructions from the SHO, expressed serious concern about the false information contained in the earlier status report.

The State subsequently produced records from Central Jail, Kapurthala, which reflected only three cases against the petitioner, including the present matter and the one earlier NDPS case. The discrepancy prompted the Court to seek a formal affidavit explaining how the incorrect particulars had been furnished and what action had been taken against the officials responsible.

In the affidavit dated November 4, 2026, the DSP acknowledged that the petitioner’s actual criminal history was as indicated by the Court. The affidavit attributed the incorrect information to the then Moharrir Head Constable (MHC) of Police Station Phillaur and an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), who had furnished the particulars without properly verifying the relevant records.

The affidavit further stated that, on the recommendation of the SHO, an inquiry under the Punjab Police Rules had been initiated against both officials pursuant to an order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), on November 3, 2026.

Thus, the State’s later position effectively confirmed the central grievance raised by the petitioner: the earlier status report had wrongly attributed several criminal cases and convictions to him. The Court was consequently required to consider the bail request on the basis of the corrected factual position, while also examining the seriousness of the alleged offence, the period of custody and the progress of the trial.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sanjay Vashisth granted regular bail to the petitioner after considering the corrected position regarding his criminal antecedents, the circumstances of the alleged recovery, the length of his custody and the slow progress of the trial. The Court also expressed serious concern over the police officials’ failure to verify the information supplied to the Court and issued directions intended to prevent similar incidents.

The Bench first examined the discrepancy between the criminal history mentioned in the status report filed during the earlier bail proceedings and the records subsequently produced before it. The previous report had attributed seven additional NDPS cases to the petitioner, stating that three had resulted in convictions and four remained pending. This information had been placed before the High Court when it dismissed the petitioner’s first bail application on April 8, 2026.

However, the custody certificate and the documents produced by the petitioner’s counsel showed that the petitioner had only one earlier NDPS case apart from the present prosecution. The earlier case, registered in 2008, had resulted in a conviction in 2011, for which he was sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner was not an accused in the other six cases referred to in the earlier status report.

The Court’s concern was heightened when the State itself acknowledged the incorrect disclosure. Following instructions from the SHO, the State counsel expressed serious concern about the false information furnished in the earlier proceedings. The subsequent affidavit filed by the DSP confirmed that the correct position was the one identified by the Court.

The affidavit explained that the then MHC and an ASI had furnished incorrect particulars because they had failed to properly examine and verify the relevant records before submitting the status report dated March 30, 2026. The Court therefore had before it an admitted instance of incorrect information being supplied in a proceeding concerning the liberty of an accused person.

The Bench did not treat the matter as an inconsequential clerical mistake. It specifically noted that the earlier report had contributed to the dismissal of a bail application, a decision involving the fundamental question of personal liberty. An inaccurate account of an accused person’s criminal history can materially influence the judicial assessment of whether bail should be granted, particularly where previous cases and convictions are relevant considerations.

The Court therefore directed the authorities to take the matter seriously. It noted that departmental proceedings had already been initiated against the two officials pursuant to the order of the SSP, Jalandhar (Rural), dated November 3, 2026. The Bench directed the SSP concerned to personally ensure that the inquiry was completed and brought to its logical conclusion expeditiously, preferably within six months.

More importantly, the Court considered it necessary to prevent the recurrence of similar errors across the State. It directed that appropriate instructions be circulated throughout Punjab to all police officers dealing with matters pending before courts. Those instructions must emphasise the necessity of properly verifying the antecedents and criminal history of accused persons before submitting any status report or affidavit.

The Court observed:

“It is also considered necessary that appropriate instructions be circulated throughout the State to all police officers dealing with matters pending before the Courts, impressing upon them the necessity of properly verifying the antecedents and criminal history of the accused before furnishing any status report or affidavit before the Court, so that such instances of incorrect disclosure of material facts do not happen again.”

This direction reflects the importance of accuracy and accountability in the assistance provided by investigating agencies to judicial institutions. Courts frequently depend on police status reports to understand the background of an accused person, the progress of an investigation and the existence of previous criminal cases. Such reports must therefore be based on verified official records rather than unconfirmed information.

The Court’s observations also highlight that a police report is not merely an internal document. Once submitted before a court, it becomes part of the material on which judicial decisions may be taken. An incorrect statement concerning previous convictions or pending criminal cases can affect the assessment of bail, the accused’s credibility and the judicial understanding of the overall circumstances. The responsibility to verify such information is consequently an essential part of the duties of officers preparing reports for judicial proceedings.

After addressing the incorrect disclosure, the High Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail on the merits of the present prosecution.

The petitioner was being prosecuted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case involved the alleged recovery of 150 tablets of Etizolam in total. Of these, 30 tablets, stated to weigh 2.7 grams, were allegedly recovered from the petitioner, along with 49 tablets of Tramadol.

The Court specifically considered the quantity of Etizolam attributed to the petitioner. It observed that the petitioner was being prosecuted for an offence involving commercial quantity of Etizolam on the basis that the weight of the salt allegedly recovered from him was 2.7 grams. This exceeded the prescribed commercial-quantity threshold of 2.5 grams by only 0.2 grams.

The Bench noted:

“Petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence involving commercial quantity of Etizolam, solely on the basis that weight of the salt of Etizolam allegedly recovered from him is stated to be 2.7 grams, which exceeds the prescribed threshold of 2.5 grams by merely 0.2 grams.”

The Court considered this circumstance as part of the overall assessment of the bail application. Its observation was directed towards the particular quantity allegedly attributable to the petitioner and the manner in which the commercial-quantity classification arose in the case. It did not amount to a final determination of the petitioner’s guilt or an adjudication of the prosecution’s evidence.

The Bench also took note of the length of the petitioner’s incarceration. He had been in custody since February 26, 2025, and had remained behind bars for a substantial period by the time his second bail application was considered in November 2026.

The progress of the trial was another important factor. Out of the 14 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined. The Court observed that keeping the petitioner in custody indefinitely, in view of the slow progress of the proceedings, would serve no useful purpose.

This consideration is consistent with the broader constitutional principle that pre-trial detention should not become an indefinite form of punishment. An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the fact that a trial remains pending does not automatically justify continued incarceration without assessing the circumstances of the individual case.

The Court therefore considered the period already spent in custody alongside the limited progress of the trial. It also attached particular significance to the admitted fact that the State had previously supplied incorrect information regarding the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The false report had materially affected the earlier bail proceedings and was a relevant circumstance that could not be ignored while considering the subsequent application.

The Bench assessed the matter on the basis of the totality of circumstances rather than treating any single factor as conclusive. The nature and quantity of the alleged recovery, the period of custody, the examination of only two out of 14 witnesses, the corrected criminal history and the State’s admission concerning the earlier status report were considered together.

Ultimately, the High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail. It granted him bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. The Bench also specified that the bail order would stand cancelled if the petitioner was found involved in similar activities in the future.

This condition was intended to ensure that the liberty granted by the Court was not misused. The relief was therefore accompanied by a clear expectation that the petitioner would not engage in similar unlawful activities while on bail.

The judgment does not amount to an acquittal or a finding that the allegations in the NDPS case are false. The prosecution remains entitled to establish its case during trial, and the petitioner will have to face the proceedings in accordance with law. The Court’s decision concerns his entitlement to remain on bail while those proceedings continue.

The ruling carries an important institutional message for police authorities. Criminal antecedents can be relevant to judicial decisions, but their relevance makes accuracy even more essential. A person cannot fairly be denied liberty on the basis of convictions or pending cases that do not actually belong to him. The duty to verify official records is therefore not a minor administrative obligation but a responsibility directly connected with the fair administration of justice.

By directing departmental accountability and statewide instructions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought to ensure that the mistake was not repeated in other cases. At the same time, by considering the petitioner’s prolonged custody and the slow pace of trial, the Court reaffirmed that personal liberty must remain a central consideration in bail proceedings.

The decision ultimately underscores that courts must receive truthful and verified information from investigating agencies, particularly when deciding questions affecting an individual’s freedom. An incorrect police report cannot be allowed to become the basis for an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and those responsible for placing inaccurate facts before a court must be held accountable.