The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an explanation from the Ferozepur SSP over failure of police officials cited as prosecution witnesses to appear before the trial court to depose.Justice Sanjay Vashisth also directed that a copy of the order in the drugs case be forwarded to the Director-General of Police, Punjab, for information and necessary action.“It is directed that a copy of this order be forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, for placing on record an explanation as to why the police officials cited as prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court to depose. A copy of this order be also forwarded to the Director-General of Police, Punjab, for information and necessary action,” Justice Vashisth asserted.The Bench was hearing two bail petitions seeking the grant of regular bail in a drugs case registered at Makhu police station in Ferozepur.Appearing before the Court, the counsel contended that both the petitioners were inside jail for about one year, seven months and eleven days.Opposing the bail pleas, the State counsel submitted that 520 grams of heroin was recovered from the joint conscious possession of the petitioners, which fells within the ambit of commercial quantity.“The allegations against both the petitioners are serious in nature and, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of regular bail in the present case. Accordingly, dismissal of both the petitions has been prayed for,” the Bench noted.After hearing rival contentions, Justice Vashisth asserted the High Court generally considered two years of incarceration as one of the relevant factors for considering the prayer for bail.“However, in the present case, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that, on several occasions, neither the prosecution witnesses appeared to depose before the trial Court nor the petitioners produced by the jail authorities,” the Bench asserted.Justice Vashisth added that keeping the petitioners behind bars for an indefinite period, particularly when the trial was not progressing at the requisite pace, would serve no useful purpose.“In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, period of incarcerationundergone by them, and the factors noticed this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to both the petitioners in the present case,” the Court directed.