CRM-M-49478-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CRM-M-49478-2026 Date of Decision : 03.09.2026 MANJINDER SINGH @ BUNTY …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present : Mr.Sartaj Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab. **** RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral) 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order Annexure P-4 dated 03.01.2024 vide which the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused to face trial in the case in question with his co-accused. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length in support of the petition. 3. However, after such hearing and after perusing record appended with the petition, I find that the petitioner has been named by the complainant as participating in the occurrence in question and in the proceedings before the SIT also, she is stated to have given the statement to the investigating agency that the petitioner was present at the spot ANJU GOEL 2026.09.03 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49478-2026 -2- coupled with the fact that in her substantive deposition made before the Court, she has named the petitioner as participating in the said occurrence. Falsity or otherwise of her such deposition, at this stage, cannot be commented upon. Rather, if the principles laid down in the report Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC, 92 are applied to the matter in question, evidence on record makes out more than a prima facie case against the petitioner to summon him as an additional accused. 4. In view thereof, I find no substance in the present petition for interference under Section 528 of BNSS. It is accordingly dismissed. 5. Interim application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of. (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) JUDGE 03.09.2026 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No ANJU GOEL 2026.09.03 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document