The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought details of the officer who was posted as Superintendent of District Jail, Sangrur, when narcotic substances, mobile phones and other incriminating material were recovered from the jail.Justice Sanjay Vashisth directed that the Court be apprised of the identity of the jail superintendent posted during the relevant period and the findings, if any, recorded against the officer.“Before parting with the order, this Court deems it appropriate to be apprised, as to who was posted as Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur, during the relevant period and what findings, if any, were recorded against the said officer during the course of the investigation/inquiry.”Fixing October 14 for the purpose, Justice Vashisth recorded: “It would not be out of place to mention that pursuant to the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, Deputy Superintendent of Police Gurpreet Singh and ASI Ashok Kumar were found to be involved in conspiring with the jail inmates for facilitating the supply of narcotic substances and other incriminating material, thereby allegedly misusing their official position and committing offences under the relevant statutes”.The directions by Justice Vashisth came on a bunch of three petitions seeking grant of regular bail to the accused during the pendency of trial in a case registered on April 27, 2025, registered at City-1 police station in Sangrur. The FIR followed searches of the high-security zones of Sangrur District Jail, during which opium, mobile phones and other material were recovered. The Bench was told that the FIR was initially registered against eight accused following official letters bearing dated April 26, 2025, from Sangrur, District Jail Assistant Superintendent Mandeep Singh.Taking up the matter, Justice Vashisth asserted one of the questions for consideration was “whether anaccused, from whom no narcotic contraband has been recovered, can be held equally liable for facing trial for offences under the NDPS Act before Special Court, particularly when role attributed to such accused is required to be considered independently”The Bench added another aspect for consideration was alleged recovery of 50-gram opium from an accused, which fells within the non-commercial category.“Having considered the matter in its entirety and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, nature of allegations levelled against the respective petitioners, role attributed to them, nature and quantity of recovery, period of custody already undergone by the petitioners, stage of trial and, more particularly, the fact that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to all the three petitioners in the present case,” Justice Vashisth observed. The Bench was assisted in the matter by advocate Sheenath A. Khemka and Rahul Kadian on the petitioners’ behalf.