Chandigarh, Oct. 17 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the senior superintendent of police (SSP), Kapurthala, to initiate departmental proceedings against a police officer who effected the arrest of a person in an alleged drugs seizure case, later found to be not intoxicant. The person arrested by the Kapurthala police, Sandeep Kumar, remained in jail for four months. "...there has been a very serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer, who put the petitioner behind the bars on the basis of an unfounded and unsubstantiated suspicion. The personal life and liberty of every human being is of paramount importance, but in the case in hand, the things appear to be otherwise.," the bench of justice Surya Pratap Singh observed while directing the SSP to take strict action against the investigating officer in the case and submit action-taken report in January. The court was hearing a bail plea from the petitioner, who was booked in a drugs case on May 28, 2025. The prosecution case was that on the basis of suspicion, the search of the person was conducted by a police party, headed by inspector/SHO Usha Rani. During search of the person, they found the petitioner carrying 275 gm powder, which was suspected to be an intoxicant powder. In view of the recovery, the FIR was lodged and the petitioner was arrested and remained in custody since then. In the appeal filed seeking bail in July, the petitioner had submitted he was innocent, and that he had been arrested on the basis of suspicion only. The court was also told that the recovered powder upon examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mohali, has not been found to be a psychotropic or narcotic substance. When the queries about the same were put to state's counsel, the court was informed that the contents of powder recovered from the possession of petitioner were paracetamol, Diclofenac and Melatonin. Any of these are not covered under the NDPS Act, and therefore, its possession cannot be held to be illegal under the NDPS Act, the state's counsel had admitted. In view of these facts, the court ordered release of the person on bail and ordered departmental proceedings against the investigating officer (IO) "for forcing an innocent person languish in jail for four months....