SIKANDER SINGH @ SIKANDER RANA vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CRM-M/22204/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010669842026

Filing Number

CRM-M/30662/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/22204/2026

Registration Date

21-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIKANDER SINGH @ SIKANDER RANA

    Adv. VISHAL SHARMA (VASUDEVA)

  2. 2.SIKANDER SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  2. 2.SIKANDER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sikander Singh's petition challenging orders declining his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon two additional accused (Guri and Kulwinder Singh) in an assault case. The court found that medical evidence showed the complainant's head injury was caused by a door—not by the sought-to-be-added accused—and that no fresh, substantial evidence surfaced during trial to meet the stringent requirements for invoking Section 319 powers, which must be exercised sparingly and only with strong, cogent evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/22204/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sikander Singh's petition challenging orders declining his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon two additional accused (Guri and Kulwinder Singh) in an assault case. The court found that medical evidence showed the complainant's head injury was caused by a door—not by the sought-to-be-added accused—and that no fresh, substantial evidence surfaced during trial to meet the stringent requirements for invoking Section 319 powers, which must be exercised sparingly and only with strong, cogent evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case