The Supreme Court on Friday observed that Punjab is the only state where it has come across the involvement of police officers in drug-related offences while considering a petition filed by a sacked senior police officer seeking anticipatory bail in a case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

“There is no other state where police officers are involved in NDPS cases. In no other state do we find this,” said a bench of justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra as the bench posted the matter for November 28 to enable the officer– dismissed additional inspector general (AIG) Raj Jit Singh Hundal – to file a response to the Punjab government’s allegation that he was not cooperating with the probe.

While the Court had on October 6 granted anticipatory bail to Hundal in one of the three cases registered against him, the Punjab government filed an affidavit claiming that two other cases, one under the NDPS and another for disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are also pending against the dismissed officer.

Hundal’s alleged involvement came under scanner while the Court was probing the role of former Inspector Inderjit Singh, who was accused of extending undue benefits to the accused in three NDPS cases by faulty investigation that helped them get acquitted.

The state police, while probing the case, found that Singh enjoyed the protection of the petitioner, who was posted as Tarn Taran’s senior superintendent of police at the relevant time. He was accused of failing to take action despite being informed about his subordinate’s alleged links with drug suppliers.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Hundal, argued that the cases against his client are fabricated as he is sought to be made a “scapegoat” in the tug of war-between two factions of the Punjab Police at the highest level.

“In no other state will you find that cases are fabricated in this fashion. I am not involved in these cases. Allow me to file a response to the state’s affidavit,” said Sibal. The Supreme Court then allowed the petitioner to file a response and posted the case for hearing on Tuesday.

The state, represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with additional advocate general Shadan Farasat, told the Court that the petitioner had breached the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in its October 6 order and that his bail is not to be extended.

The Court order required the petitioner to report daily to the investigating officer between 10am to 1pm and cooperate with the investigation. Singhvi said that since the date of the order, multiple notices were sent to Hundal to join the probe, but he turned up only on October 20.

Sibal replied, “I was told to cooperate with the investigation in one FIR (first information report), but I was not told that on April 20, 2023, they filed another FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and a third one under NDPS and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on May 16.”

Hundal had filed a fresh petition through advocate Shradha Deshmukh in the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail in the disproportionate assets case. This matter is yet to be taken up. In that petition, Hundal challenged an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana high court on October 20 refusing him anticipatory bail.

The high court had concluded, “As per the bank details from 2016 till 2022, the amount received in the petitioner’s bank account was Rs.13.82 crore found to be in addition to his salary of around ₹74,21,584. As a public servant, the petitioner was obliged to explain the transactions, whereby he amassed such a massive amount of around Rs.13,82,48,593.”

The petitioner claimed this finding to be false as the high court relied on an “investigation report” submitted by the state without sharing it with Hundal’s lawyers.

The state pointed out that the three FIRs against Hundal were filed based on three special investigation team (SIT) reports filed before the high court. The high court was considering a batch of petitions seeking to probe the role of police officers in compromising the probe into NDPS cases.

On September 15 this year, the high court permitted the state to proceed on the basis of the SIT reports recommending that the involvement of public servants, including police officers, with drug peddlers needs to be independently investigated.

The affidavit by the Punjab government filed through advocate Nupur Kumar said, “It is only after the independent SIT found extensive materials against the appellant, and suggested that an investigation be formally initiated…the present petitioner was arrayed as a co-accused in the FIR dated April 19.”

He was added as an accused after the state home department granted sanction to the Director General of Police on April 17.

Sibal had relied on this letter to claim that the state government was interfering with the probe. On the previous date of hearing, Sibal further claimed, “The order of April 17 whereby the Special Secretary Home directed the DGP Punjab to nominate the petitioner as an accused in a six-year-old FIR, is wholly untenable in law and tantamount to dictating the course of investigations.”