Chandigarh, Oct. 31 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has imposed a fine of Rs.1 lakh on commissioner of Jalandhar police for failing to provide requisite information in respect of a drugs case matter involving a Jalandhar resident. The bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj observed that conflicting facts are being given by the state's counsel, which has been more often a "norm than an exception". It added that the statements made by the counsel are not corroborated. ".even though the fact of a random number of multiple FIRs having been registered, is pleaded during argument on bail, however details of such FIRs or nature of offences and the allegations set out against the petitioner are seldom apprised. The matter thus remains pending before this court for lack of basic instructions which the state is expected to convey to its counsel. The administration of criminal justice cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the prosecution. Hence, this court deems it fit to proceed further without awaiting," the bench further observed while allowing bail of one Raghubir Singh arrested in an FIR registered on March 26, 2023, at Navi Baradari police station in Jalandhar. The petitioner was in custody for over two years in the drugs seizure case while his bail plea was pending since December 2024. The court said in an earlier case in December 2024, the state's counsel claimed before the court that the petitioner was involved in 18 other criminal cases including 7 cases under the NDPS Act and that he was convicted in three of the cases. ".at that time the state counsel specifically stated that only nine prosecution witnesses remained to be examined and that the trial would not take long time to conclude, however, notwithstanding a lapse of two years, only two more witnesses have been examined thereafter, whereas other official witnesses have chosen not to appear so far. No reasons have been given for the same," it further recorded. As per the order, the state police was granted time to verify "conflicting statements" about criminal antecedents. But despite the grant of two opportunities, the instructions remain incomplete. State counsel submitted a proforma as per which the petitioner is involved only in 2 cases and he stands acquitted in one. The government counsel had told the court that the instructions received later is at variance and it states 16 cases whereas earlier stand was 18. On the other hand, petitioner's counsel had told the court that the petitioner has already been granted bail in other criminal cases and that he cannot be accounted for the delay of trial since witnesses have chosen not to appear. The court allowed the bail while considering the custody period and non appearance of the prosecution witnesses for two and half years for getting their statements recorded....