CWP-12056-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 134 Lali & another State of Punjab & others CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. Mr. Vik *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J 1. The the Constitution of India is seeking direction to General of Police, Punjab to conduct a fair inquiry into their illegal torture and custody causing serious injur 2. The petitioners claim that re implicated them in FIR No.17 dated 21.01.2026 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 132, 74, 221 of BNS registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. They were wrongly detained and given third degree treatm Petitioner No.2 along with Paramjeet Singh and Pooja was granted anticipatory bail. The respondent petitioner No.1’s discharge. The said application was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2026. The petition custody and torture by police officials. 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Lali & another Versus State of Punjab & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr.Tapish Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petition under Article the Constitution of India is seeking direction to General of Police, Punjab to conduct a fair inquiry into their illegal torture and custody causing serious injuries to them. The petitioners claim that respondent implicated them in FIR No.17 dated 21.01.2026 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 132, 74, 221 of BNS registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. They were wrongly detained and given third degree treatm Petitioner No.2 along with Paramjeet Singh and Pooja was granted anticipatory bail. The respondents filed an application before JMIC, Payal seeking petitioner No.1’s discharge. The said application was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2026. The petitioners are having concrete evidence disclosing illegal custody and torture by police officials. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12056-2026 Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 …Petitioners …Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Tapish Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No.2-Director General of Police, Punjab to conduct a fair inquiry into their illegal, unlawful to them. spondent-police officials wrongly implicated them in FIR No.17 dated 21.01.2026 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 132, 74, 221 of BNS registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. They were wrongly detained and given third degree treatment. Petitioner No.2 along with Paramjeet Singh and Pooja was granted anticipatory filed an application before JMIC, Payal seeking petitioner No.1’s discharge. The said application was allowed vide order dated ers are having concrete evidence disclosing illegal of Director unlawful olice officials wrongly implicated them in FIR No.17 dated 21.01.2026 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 132, 74, 221 of BNS registered at Police Station Payal, District ent. Petitioner No.2 along with Paramjeet Singh and Pooja was granted anticipatory filed an application before JMIC, Payal seeking petitioner No.1’s discharge. The said application was allowed vide order dated ers are having concrete evidence disclosing illegal VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12056-2026 3. Learned State counsel submits that for the same cause of action and on the same set of allegations, Palo who is mother of petitioner No.1 filed CRM-M-5337-2026 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternati 4. The petitioners have not disclosed aforesaid fact in the instant petition. On being confronted with aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have an independent right to file petition, thus, non 5. From the perusal of paper evident that the said petition was filed by petitioner No.1 was for the same cause of action and on There is concealment of facts. The petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. 6. Dismissed. 22.04.2026 Vimal Whether Whether reportable 2026 -2- Learned State counsel submits that for the same cause of action and on the same set of allegations, Palo who is mother of petitioner No.1 filed 2026 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedies as available in law. The petitioners have not disclosed aforesaid fact in the instant petition. On being confronted with aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have an independent right to file tition, thus, non-disclosure of aforesaid fact cannot affect their claim. From the perusal of paper-book of CRM evident that the said petition was filed by petitioner No.1 was for the same cause of action and on the basis of same set of allegations. There is concealment of facts. The petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Learned State counsel submits that for the same cause of action and on the same set of allegations, Palo who is mother of petitioner No.1 filed 2026 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed as ve remedies as available in law. The petitioners have not disclosed aforesaid fact in the instant petition. On being confronted with aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have an independent right to file disclosure of aforesaid fact cannot affect their claim. book of CRM-M-5337-2026, it is evident that the said petition was filed by petitioner No.1-Lali’s mother and it the basis of same set of allegations. There is concealment of facts. The petition is liable to be dismissed on the said (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Learned State counsel submits that for the same cause of action and on the same set of allegations, Palo who is mother of petitioner No.1 filed 2026 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed as The petitioners have not disclosed aforesaid fact in the instant petition. On being confronted with aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have an independent right to file 2026, it is Lali’s mother and it the basis of same set of allegations. There is concealment of facts. The petition is liable to be dismissed on the said (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document