The Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned how an accused, while in custody, could allegedly remain in contact with co-accused through a mobile phone—raising the spectre of either false allegations or serious lapses within jail administration. The Bench has also called for serious introspection in the matter by the State authorities.Dealing with a bail petition, Justice Sanjay Vashisth made it clear that the issue went beyond the individual case and touched upon systemic concerns.“Either the allegations are false, or there has been some form of connivance or negligence on the part of the jail authorities in facilitating access to a mobile phone, as alleged in the present case,” Justice Vashisth asserted.Flagging the gravity of the situation, Justice Vashisth asserted such incidents strike at the very core of prison discipline and public order.The Court observed: “The matter requires serious introspection by the Home Department of the State of Haryana to prevent future complications and to maintain public order, particularly in situations where accused/prisoners, already in custody, are able to engage in such activities.”The Bench added such a “situation was wholly unacceptable and not expected, especially by the Courts.”The observations are significant as these effectively place the onus on the State of Haryana to examine whether the lapse—if any—was due to administrative negligence or something more serious, including possible collusion.Before parting with the matter, Justice Vashisth allowed the bail petition, clarifying that the observations were not an expression on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing the required bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.Justice Vashisth was dealing with the petition seeking regular bail in the FIR registered on May 12, 2022, under provisions of the NDPS Act and Section 201 of the IPC at Bhuna police station in Fatehabad district.During the hearing, the Bench was told that the petitioner was allegedly involved in approximately 54 criminal cases.Referring briefly to the petitioner’s antecedents, the Court noted that he was convicted in around 13 cases, but only one conviction was under the provisions of the NDPS Act. In other cases, he was either acquitted, had confessed guilt, or had already undergone the sentence awarded.While considering the allegations vis-à-vis petitioner, the Court expressed surprise that he, while in custody, was in contact with other accused through a mobile phone, a fact which appears not to have come to the knowledge of Superintendent or other jail officials.The Bench observed that such a situation could not be brushed aside lightly, as it pointed towards either a false narrative or a troubling lapse within the prison system.