Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRR/1267/2026 of MANOJ KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 14 July 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1267-2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 MANOJ KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The
119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1267-2026
Date of Decision: 14.07.2026
MANOJ KUMAR
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:
Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (now Section 348 BNSS, 2023) for recalling the victim, Pawan Kumar, as a prosecution witness was allowed without affording the petitioner-accused an opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to law, and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to personal grudge and enmity, despite having no role in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to associate the alleged child witness during investigation and even omitted to cite him as a witness in the final report. It RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh is further argued that, at a belated stage during the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 348 of the BNSS solely to fill up the lacunae in its case by summoning the said child witness. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court allowed the said application on the same very day it was filed, without issuing notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity to file a reply or contest the said application, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner's right to a fair trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
2. Notice of motion.
3. Mr. P.S. Pandher, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submits that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and vehemently opposes the present petition. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the submissions made by ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the ld. trial allowed the application without issuing notice to the petitioner/accused or affording an opportunity of hearing to contest the same. It is a settled principle of law that the petitioner ought to have been afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing before any order was passed on the application. However, in the present case, no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner. RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh
6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 is set aside and petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide the said application moved by the SHO through the learned Public Prosecutor for including the minor child as a prosecution witness afresh, after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
(H.S.GREWAL) 14.07.2026
JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh