CRM-M-20182-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 148 CRM-M-20182-2026 Decided on: 09.07.2026 Pawan Kumar …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG Punjab **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS for re-calling of the witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ravinder Kaur and PW2 – Paramjit Singh has been dismissed in case FIR No.218 dated 28.08.2021, registered under Section 379-B IPC/Section 304 of BNSS at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana. 2. The ground taken in the application is that earlier counsel though had cross-examined the witnesses, but now since new counsel has been engaged by the petitioner, some material questions need to be asked which are essential and necessary for proper adjudication of the case. Upon this, this Court did put a specific query to counsel for the petitioner that what other fact is required to be established on record. Answer is that “identity of the accused has not been well established by the prosecution REENA 2026.07.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20182-2026 itself, as no test identification parade was conducted but for making it clear, petitioner being accused need to put certain questions to both the witnesses because as per their admission, petitioner was shown to the said witnesses when he was in the lockup.” 3. This Court is unable to gather what would be achieved, if identity of the accused is established, that too at the instance of defence counsel himself/herself. Moreover, merely engaging of new counsel gives no right to the accused for recalling of the witnesses to satisfy his own whims. As per principle of criminal jurisprudence, onus to prove identity of the accused actually involved in the incident is only upon the prosecution and not on the defence counsel. Prayer itself is misconceived. 4. Thus, present petition is dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 09.07.2026 JUDGE reena Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO REENA 2026.07.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh