IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order:10.09.2025 Maninder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE

1. Order dated 20.08.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, declining an application under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been impugned in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia submits that petitioner was facing trial before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The trial was at the fag end and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded. An application under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, was moved by the petitioner for summoning record in defence evidence. While learned trial court allowed the petitioner to summon record of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, pertaining to the deceased, the prayer for summoning DDR record dated 13.05.2023 and 14.05.2023, original record of movement of vehicles, record of duties of police officials, CCTV footage dated 13.05.2023 and 14.05.2023 was declined only for the reason that the police authorities had denied the record under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. Learned counsel further argued that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, petitioner's plea was that he was arrested from the house of his cousin in the night of 13.05.2023 at 8:00 P.M. and was kept in police custody throughout the night. Later on, his arrest was shown on 14.05.2023. Learned counsel submitted that on the date of alleged commission of offence, petitioner was not even present in village Sibbo Chakk, District Hoshiarpur, where the offence allegedly occurred, but was in Jalandhar and in this context, referred to the statements of complainant Karan Singh, examined as PW1, Inspector Amarjit Kaur, examined as PW8, as also statement of ASI Om Parkash, examined as DW6. The documents sought to be summoned were required to prove defence plea of the petitioner. It was urged that the reasons recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, for declining the application were against the statutory provisions and the prayer could not be refused only on the ground that the police authorities had earlier refused to provide the documents. It is, thus, prayed that the order under challenge be set aside in the interest of justice.

4. Learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petition, arguing that impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, was passed in accordance with law.

5. Petitioner is facing trial in case vide FIR No.35, dated 14.05.2023, under Section 302, 307, 341, 323, 376, 354D IPC, Police Station Haji Pur, District Hoshiarpur. All prosecution witnesses have been examined in the case. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has also been recorded. His version in defence is as under:-

“I am innocent and have been falsely involved in the present case at the behest of Karan who is resident of my village and who had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from my father on the pretext of purchasing the plot at Kaluchang village on 13.05.2023. I had gone to Jalandhar, it being Saturday to visit Nakodar Dargah with my cousin Varinder on Sunday morning. I was arrested by one lady Police Inspector and 3-4 other Police Officials from the house of my cousin in a Govt. vehicle on the night of 13.05.2023 at about 08:00 P.M. I was kept in police custody on the intervening night of 13.05.2023 and 14.05.2023. I was not even told the reason of my arrest. I was tortured at police station and was force to sign on some blank papers and thereafter on 14.05.2023, I was told that I have been arrested in injury case of the sister of Karan. I came to