Making it clear that the “stubborn attitude” of official witnesses was one of the reasons behind the “huge pendency of litigation”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the deduction of Rs 50,000 from an investigating officer’s salary after observing that he was “playing hide and seek” by remaining absent before the trial court for deposing in a criminal case, while appearing before the High Court to oppose the bail.Justice Alok Jain asserted it was a fit case for his arrest from the courtroom itself to send a strong message that the authorities could not be permitted to violate court orders. But taking into consideration his unconditional apology and undertaking to appear before the trial court, Justice Jain granted him one last opportunity to surrender. He was directed to appear before the trial court on September 9 to get his testimony recorded and tender his unconditional apology “towards his lapse and dereliction in duty” in writing by way of an affidavit. The Tarn Taran Senior Superintendent of Police was directed to circulate the officer’s written apology across all police stations under his jurisdiction and to counterparts in other districts.At the onset, counsel for the petitioner placed on record order dated August 17 passed by Tarn Taran Additional District and Sessions Judge, whereby non-bailable warrants were issued against the Assistant Sub Inspector, who was present in Court that day.Describing it as a “strange situation”, Justice Jain observed the High Court had been issuing repeated directions to the authorities concerned for official witnesses to remain more vigilant in adhering to the orders passed by the trial Court.Justice Jain added: “One of the reasons behind the huge pendency of litigation/trials is the stubborn attitude of the official witnesses, who are not appearing before the learned trial Courts, despite granting appropriate opportunity to appear by summoning the official witnesses and then by issuing bailable/non-bailable warrants. Surprisingly, the very authorities who execute such bailable/non-bailable warrants failed in the duty to execute such warrants for the obvious reasons and due to which the proceedings are being delayed.”Justice Jain added these officials had no sense of remorse for remaining absent and for their failure to inform the Court “much less the public prosecutor or the District Attorney of the reason for such absence.”Justice Jain added that the High Court had been repeatedly directing the highest authority to look into the issue. Subsequent to it, certain proceedings/affidavits were filed by the police authorities that necessary circulars were issued. But despite the same, the investigating officer in the present case failed to get his testimony recorded, compelling the trial Court to pass an order issuing non-bailable warrants against the concerned police official.”Strangely, the investigating officer, who violates the orders passed by the learned trial Court is conveniently present before this Court today to oppose the bail of the petitioner. Apparently, the official is trying to play hide and seek for obvious reason, as on one hand he remains absent for recording his testimony before the trial Court and, on other hand is present before this Court to oppose the bail application,” Justice Jain observed.The Court observed a stringent order was required to be passed against the police officer however, one last opportunity is granted to ASI Harjinder Singh to surrender before the learned trial Court at 10:00 A.M. on 09.09.2026 and get his testimony recorded and to tender his unconditional apology before the learned trial Court in writing by way of an affidavit and also pay a costs of Rs.50,000 which shall be deducted from his salary,” the Court directed.Before parting with the order, Justice Jain directed the authorities concerned to ensure “such witnesses remain available as and when required and that the proceedings are not unnecessarily adjourned, delayed or protracted, except for cogent and justifiable reasons beyond their control.”