CRA-D-923-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CRA-D-923-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 RIZWAN ......... Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA ......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present Mr. Aezaz Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, A.A.G, Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) CRM-23817-2026 This is an applica"on for condona"on of delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons men"oned in the applica"on, the same is allowed and delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRA-D-923-2026 FIR No. Dated Police Sta7on Sec7ons 259 25.11.2025 Sadar Tauru, District Nuh 17 of UAP (A) and 113(3) of BNS, 2023 1. The present pe""on has been filed for se6ng aside the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Addi"onal Sessions Judge, Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana, in the case "tled State vs. Sumit & Ors., arising out of the above-cap"oned FIR, whereby the learned Addi"onal Sessions Judge allowed the applica"on filed by the respondent–State of Haryana seeking extension of the period of inves"ga"on beyond 90 days under Sec"on 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Ac"vi"es (Preven"on) Act, 1967. 2. Considering the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass, no wri?en response is required from the State. Even learned State counsel submits that he does not want to file any response. JYOTI 2026.05.29 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-D-923-2026 (O&M) 2 3. The fundamental defect pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant is that, as is apparent from the order dated 19.02.2026, the accused was not heard before the passing of the said order. 4. We have perused the order dated 19.02.2026, annexed at pages 16A to 18, and the memo thereof reflects only the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor, who was assisted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, even the learned trial Court was conscious of the fact that the accused was not being heard while extending the period of inves"ga"on. 5. Without commen"ng upon the merits of the said applica"on, this Court finds from the por"on recorded aEer the word “heard” that the aforesaid irregularity has occurred, in asmuch as the accused had a right to be heard at that stage. 6. Given above, the present appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 is hereby quashed and set aside, with a direc"on to the concerned trial Court to rehear the applica"on filed by the Public Prosecutor under Sec"on 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Ac"vi"es (Preven"on) Act, 1967, aEer affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused. It is clarified that the ma?er shall be decided on priority. All pending miscellaneous applica"ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 27.05.2026 Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No JYOTI 2026.05.29 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.