The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Barnala Senior Superintendent of Police to get an inquiry conducted into the conduct of an Investigating Officer while granting regular bail to a 25-year-old man booked in a heroin case. The Bench noted that the accused was named in the secret information received by the police, but he was neither found in the vehicle allegedly carrying the contraband, nor apprehended at the spot.Justice Sanjay Vashisth passed the order on a petition filed by the accused facing prosecution under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the BNS in an FIR registered at Barnala city police station on December 11 last year.As per the prosecution case, secret information received around 9 to 10 pm on December 11, 2025, stating that three persons were involved in selling heroin and were travelling together in a white SUV. The information further suggested that all three could be apprehended with a heavy quantity of narcotic contraband if a naka was erected.The petitioner’s counsel submitted that only two persons were inside when the SUV was stopped. The police allegedly recovered 1.39 kg of heroin from underneath the driver’s seat, following which both occupants were arrested.The prosecution subsequently alleged that the case property and the arrested accused were being produced before the court, when a person appeared perplexed and terrified. He was identified by an arrested accused as his co-accused.The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that no contraband was recovered from him when he was apprehended and that there was no recovery from him during further investigation. He had remained in custody since then and had no other criminal case against him.The State did not dispute the factual assertions, including the period of incarceration, though it opposed the bail petition. The custody certificate showed that the accused had undergone eight months and three days in jail as on August 15.Justice Vashisth observed that the prosecution’s explanation was yet to be tested through evidence and raised a question about the probability of the alleged circumstances, particularly because the petitioner, despite being named in the secret information, was neither present in the vehicle nor apprehended at the spot.“It cannot be ignored that explanation furnished by the prosecution, which is yet to be tested and filtered through evidence, raises a question as to the probability of the alleged circumstances, particularly as to why petitioner, despite being named in the secret information, was neither found present in the vehicle nor apprehended at the spot,” Justice Vashisth asserted.Holding that this aspect would require consideration during the trial, Justice Vashisth said: “At this stage, petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of eight months and three days. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period.”The court accordingly allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Magistrate, if he was not required in any other case.“This court deems it appropriate to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, to get an inquiry conducted in regard to the conduct of the Investigating Officer, particularly by examining the explanation furnished in the challan with regard to the arrest and involvement of the petitioner in the present case. Let the requisite action/decision be taken by the SSP, Barnala, within a period of four weeks from today. For the purpose only, present petition be listed on September 25,” Justice Vashisth concluded.