CRR-1361-2026 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CRR-1361-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 09.07.2026 Gursewak Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) CRM-22965-2026 I. Prayer in this criminal miscellaneous application is for condoning the delay of 250 days in filing the present revision petition. II. In view of the averments made in the application, prayer made herein is allowed. Accordingly, delay of 250 days in filing the revision petition, is hereby condoned. III. CRM stands disposed of. CRR-1361-2026 1. Instant Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 Cr.P.C.), for summoning respondent No.2 as an additional accused in case arising out of FIR No.220, dated 11.12.2022, registered under Sections 307, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC [corresponding Sections 109, 115(2), 351 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023] JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1361-2026 (O&M) - 2 - and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, has been dismissed. 2. While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 Cr.P.C.), the learned trial Court has noticed that, at the relevant stage, only one prosecution witness, namely, Gursewak Singh (PW-1), had entered the witness-box and even his examination-in-chief remained incomplete, as the same had been deferred. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623. 3. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It is not the satisfaction of the complainant or that of the proposed accused which is relevant while exercising powers under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 Cr.P.C.). Rather, it is for the Court to satisfy itself, on the basis of the evidence and material available on record, whether a case is made out for summoning any additional accused. In the present case, learned trial Court, by declining the prayer made by the complainant at the present stage, has only held that the application was premature. Therefore, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the present revision petition stands dismissed. However, needless to observe that if, during the course of trial, sufficient evidence comes on record to the satisfaction of the learned trial JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1361-2026 (O&M) - 3 - Court, it shall always be open to the complainant to renew the prayer under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023, or for the learned trial Court to exercise its powers under the said provision, if so warranted in accordance with law. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 09, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document