The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for action-taken report from the State government after terming the non-appearance of an Investigating Officer in an NDPS case before the trial court as a “very serious matter”. The officer had failed to turn up before the court despite the issuance of summons, followed by bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants.Justice Surya Partap Singh made the observation while dismissing a second bail petition filed by an accused. The Bench observed that the ‘zimni’ or interim orders passed the trial court placed, on record by the petitioner’s counsel, showed that “on multiple occasions bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants of one police official, namely ‘ASI Rajbir Singh’, have been issued, who was the Investigating Officer of this case.”The Bench then made clear the gravity with which it viewed the conduct by observing: “This is a very serious matter that despite issuing processes in the form of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants, the Investigating Officer of the case is not appearing in the Court.”Justice Surya Partap Singh noted that SSP Amritsar (Rural) Kanwaljit Singh Chahal, present in the court, assured that the matter would be “dealt with seriously and the action taken report will be submitted within a period of ten days.”Acting on the assurance, Justice Surya Partap Singh ordered that the matter be listed for compliance on August 31 and directed the State to submit the action-taken report by the next date of hearing. The Bench also exempted the SSP from personal appearance on that date.Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed that an FIR in the matter was registered on December 3, 2023, at Gharinda police station in Amritsar (Rural) for offences under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Arms Act.The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, was that on December 3, 2023, a police team deputed for patrolling duty apprehended a person on suspicion and 572 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession. Another 300 grams of heroin was subsequently recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. The formalities concerning seizure and sealing of the contraband, registration of the FIR and formal arrest were thereafter completed and further investigation was taken up.The petitioner’s first bail petition was dismissed on April 1, 2025. Thereafter, he approached the Supreme Court by way of an SLP seeking bail, which was dismissed on December 5, 2025. In the second bail petition, the petitioner contended that there had been a change in circumstances since dismissal of the earlier bail plea. It was argued that “no significant progress in trial has taken place in the last more than eight months” and that the benefit of bail had been granted by the High Court to co-accused.After considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, the High Court held that there was “no significant change in circumstances from the date of dismissal of former bail petition” and also noted that the order dismissing the earlier petition had been approved by the Supreme Court. The Bench consequently held that the present petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.