126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.36820 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2026 Seema Singla @ Seema …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. A.G, Haryana. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the ‘BNSS’) is to the order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which stay granted vide order dated 05.02.2025 was vacated. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as emerging from the petition, are that vide order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was summoned as an accused by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, exercising powers under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite the petitioner having been found to be innocent by the investigating agency. YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.36820 of 2026 (O&M) -2- 3. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner instituted a criminal revision petition (Annexure P-5) which came up for hearing before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nuh, on 05.02.2025. Vide the said order (Annexure P-6), operation of the order dated 18.12.2024 was stayed. 4. By way of the impugned order dated 15.04.2026, the said stay granted vide order dated 05.02.2025 was vacated leading to the filing of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reasoning whatsoever was given by the Revisional Court while vacating the stay. He further submits that arguments shall be addressed on 13.07.2026, i.e. the date fixed before the Court and prays that till then, the interim order dated 05.02.2025 may be ordered to be continued. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that though, the learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, did not commit any illegality by vacating the stay, the order should have given the reasons for doing so. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that arguments shall be addressed on 13.07.2026, i.e. the date already fixed in Court or any other date as per the convenience of the learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, in case, for some reason, arguments cannot be heard on 13.07.2026. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court of Sessions Judge, Nuh, the petitioner is permitted to address arguments on the next date of hearing, i.e. 13.07.2026 YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.36820 of 2026 (O&M) -3- or any other date as per the convenience of the learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, and till then, the stay granted vide order dated 05.02.2025 shall continue. In case any further request for adjournment is made by the petitioner, the stay order dated 05.02.2025 shall be deemed to have been vacated. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 10, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.