IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6183-2026 Date of Decision:- 05.02.2026 Narinder Singh Virdi @ Sonu ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioner Narinder Singh Virdi @ Sonu filed petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to set aside order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. SC/465/2023, titled “State Vs. Narinder Singh Virdi and Others”, pertaining to FIR No. 255 dated 03.10.2022 under Section 343, 365, 389, 466, 471, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 6, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana (Annexure P-4) being against the law, with further prayer to grant any other relief which the Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of case.

record the record of hotel register which was lying in police file, which was

not earlier part of challan report. Said application was contested by filing

reply (Annexure P-3). However, said application was wrongly allowed by passing impugned order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1). It is pointed out that record which the prosecution wants to place on record in Court file was never earlier relied upon. Prosecution has failed to give any justification why it was not placed on record earlier. Prosecution cannot be permitted to fill up lacunas in case. Without appreciating these facts, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Ludhiana wrongly allowed the application by passing impugned order dated

19.12.2025, which deserves to be set aside. Hence, present petition.

3. On advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab appeared on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab. Learned counsel representing State pointed out that record mentioned in application was already taken into police possession during the course of investigation. Even concerned witness was cited in the list of witnesses. Due to inadvertent mistake, record of hotel was not attached with challan report. Facts of case and aforesaid factual position was rightly considered by trial Court and application was rightly allowed. Impugned order dated

19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) does not require any interference.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the place on record the attested copy of hotel register collected by Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, but the same was not placed on placed on record list of witnesses (Annexure P-5), where at serial No. 8, witness is already cited, as witness for producing the record of hotel.

Therefore, it cannot be said that some new documents are being produced before trial Court. Aforesaid factual position is rightly considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Ludhiana. Case is still fixed for prosecution evidence. Petitioner/accused will get full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and can also lead his evidence in defence. In the light of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in well- reasoned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Ludhiana dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and same is, accordingly upheld and petition filed by petitioner is, accordingly dismissed.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.

05.02.2026 (AMARJOT BHATTI)

lalit JUDGE