Pargat Singh alias Kaka Son of Raj Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, 2025

The Court was hearing a plea seeking directions for the State to conduct a fair and impartial probe into NDPS cases or alternatively to hand over investigations to an independent investigating agency.

The petitioner is alleged to be a habitual offender and notorious drug smuggler, involved in 12 criminal cases under the NDPS Act, Arms Act, and IPC.

Despite an FIR being registered against the petitioner on February 6, 2025, the police have failed to arrest him even after six months, raising concerns about police inaction or collusion.

The inaction of police in arresting accused persons under the NDPS Act for over six months?

Whether police have taken steps under Section 84 of B.N.S.S. to declare such accused as proclaimed offenders/proclaimed persons?

Whether police have moved court applications for the attachment of movable and immovable properties of absconders?

The Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana, to file a list of accused persons under the NDPS Act who have not been arrested for more than six months.

The affidavit by the DGP must include:

• Details of any steps taken to declare such accused as proclaimed offenders under Section 84 B.N.S.S.

• Whether any applications have been filed in court for attachment of properties of these absconders.

• Steps taken by police to arrest the accused and any action against IOs if negligence is found.

The Court noted a lack of supervision in the investigation of NDPS cases across Haryana districts.

The Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on September 16, 2025 and directed the affidavit to be filed before that date.

The High Court’s direction reflects the judiciary’s concern over the inefficiency and possible complicity of police in NDPS investigations, particularly regarding arrest of accused persons.

Emphasis on the use of proclaimed offender declarations and property attachment underscores the need for legal tools to be actively used to prevent absconding and to disrupt criminal activities financially.

The order aims to ensure transparency and accountability in law enforcement by mandating reports and possible disciplinary actions against negligent officers.

This case underscores the broader problem of enforcement gaps in NDPS-related crimes and the judiciary’s active role in demanding corrective action.