Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh Alias Daljit Singh Sond vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 May, 2026
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
153
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.05.2026
Daljit Singh @ Daljit Singh Sond ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the order dated
23.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Malerkotla in case arising out of FIR No.28 dated 25.06.2024,
registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police
Station City Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla, whereby the application filed by
respondent No.2-Amit Kumar seeking separation of trial from co-accused
Kulwinder Singh and Gurjant Singh was allowed and the supplementary
challan qua the said co-accused was ordered to be separated from the main
challan.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered at the instance of the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -2-
present petitioner, who is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of air
tickets under the name and style of “Global Travels”, alleging that accused
Amit Kumar and Harpreet Singh, in connivance with each other, induced the
petitioner to purchase air tickets from them through their travel concern namely
“Worldwide Travel and Tourism”. It was alleged that during the course of
business transactions, the petitioner purchased approximately 120-125 air
tickets worth about Rs.1.17 crores from the accused persons and deposited the
corresponding amounts in the bank accounts furnished by them. However,
several tickets were found to be fake, cancelled, void or never delivered,
resulting in huge financial loss to the petitioner, who had to arrange fresh
tickets for his customers at higher rates and refund amounts from his own
pocket. The petitioner alleged that the accused persons acted in furtherance of
a well-planned conspiracy and cheated him to the tune of approximately Rs.60
lakhs.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. After completion of investigation, the police initially presented
challan against respondent No.2-Amit Kumar on 22.11.2024 and thereafter a
supplementary challan against co-accused Kulwinder Singh and Gurjant Singh
was presented on 17.12.2025. Respondent No.2 thereafter moved an
application before the learned trial Court seeking separation of the
supplementary challan from the main challan on the ground that trial qua him
was at the fag end and clubbing the supplementary challan would amount to a
de novo trial. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court by
passing the impugned order dated 23.04.2026, which reads as under:
“Accused Amit Kumar produced by the jail
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -3-authorities. It has come into my notice that vide order
09.03.2026 of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed
that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner
Sunit Kumar in pursuant of FIR no.28 dated
25.06.2024(present FIR) provided he joins the investigation
and cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Whereas in the
zimni order dated 18.03.2026 this fact has been mentioned
qua accused Amit Kumar instead of Sunit Kumar. The
mistake is clerical one and is rectified to that effect. Reader
is directed to give mark against the said order regarding
rectification.
I have heard learned counsel for applicant-accused
Amit Verma and ld. APP for the State on the application
moved by accusedapplicant Amit Kumar for separation of
supplementary challan, attached with the main challan of
accused Amit Kumar. It is averred in the application that
accused Amit Kumar is in custody since 30.09.2024 and
report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared against him
and presented in the Court on 27.11.2024. Charge against
accused Amit Kumar was also framed on 14.02.2025 and
since then prosecution took approximately 45 opportunities
but failed to conclude their evidence. The trial is at its fag
end but attachment of supplementary challan with main
challan would amount to de-novo trial of the accused Amit
Kumar which is against the provisions of Cr.P.C. and
principal of natural justice. The investigating agency
presented supplementary challan on 10.03.2026 and this
Court attached the same with the main challan. The
attachment of supplementary challan with the main challan
has caused great prejudice to the accused as it would result
in delay in the trial of main challan. It is prayed that
supplementary challan attached with the main challan may
kindly be ordered to be separated in the interest of justiceMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -4-and fair play.
Perusal of file shows that main challan/report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. against accused Amit Kumar was
presented in the Court on 27.11.2024. Charge against
accused Amit Kumar was framed on 14.02.2025 and 11
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
Supplementary challan against accused Kulwinder Singh
and Gurjant Singh was presented in the Court on
10.03.2026 which is attached with main challan and notice
to accused Kulwinder Singh and Gurjant Singh are being
issued. Learned counsel for applicant-accused Amit Kumar
argued that the main challan is at its fag end but attachment
of supplementary challan with main challan would amount
to de-novo trial of the accused Amit Kumar. Reliance is
being placed upon case law titled as Sanjay and another Vs.
State of Haryana and others, CRM-M-24716 of 2019
(O&M), CRM-M-37560 of 2020 (O&M). D/d. 24.11.2020
(Punjab and Haryana High Court) whereby it is held that
when trial against five accused persons is virtually at its fag
end, it will not be fair to force them to undergo a de novo
trial, just because another co-accused arrested subsequently
and supplementary challan filed. Trial Court directed to
proceed with two separate trials. In the present case also,
trial of accused Amit Kumar is virtually at its fag end but
supplementary challan of coaccused was filed on
10.03.2026 which is attached with main challan and it
would amount to de-novo trial of the accused Amit Kumar.
Hence, it is appropriate that supplementary challan be
proceeded separately. In view of above discussion,
application is allowed. Ahlmad is directed to separate
supplementary challan from the main challan and register it
separately, in which notice to accused Kulwinder Singh and
Gurjant Singh be issued for 28.04.2026.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -5-
Notice to complainant be issue for the date fixed. In
the present challan, PWs be summoned for the date fixed.
Also, a set of summons of witnesses be handed over to ld.
APP to get ensure the service of witnesses. It is made clear
that only one opportunity is granted to prosecution to
conclude its evidence. Accused Amit Kumar be also
produced on the date fixed. Copy of this order be annexed
with supplementary challan.”
4. Aggrieved from the impugned order, the petitioner/complainant
has filed the present petition.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned
trial Court did not properly appreciate factual and legal position of the case. It
is further argued that the impugned order has been obtained by respondent No.2
by misleading the Court and suppressing material facts, particularly the
subsequent order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
whereby bail was granted to him and no direction restricting examination to
only five prosecution witnesses had been issued. Respondent No.2 deliberately
relied upon earlier observations made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
create an impression that only five prosecution witnesses remained to be
examined and that the trial was likely to conclude within two days. It is further
argued that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the case was still at
the stage of prosecution evidence and separation of trial at such stage would
seriously prejudice the prosecution and may result in conflicting judgments on
identical facts and evidence. The allegations against all accused persons arise
out of the same transaction and are founded upon common evidence and,
therefore, joint trial was not only permissible but desirable in law. It is also
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -6-
argued that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles governing
joint trial under Section 223(d) of Cr.P.C. which specifically contemplate joint
trial of persons accused of offences committed in the course of the same
transaction. It is, thus, argued that the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla deserves to be set aside
and the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner.
7. The core grievance raised by the petitioner is that since the
allegations against all the accused persons arise out of the same transaction and
are founded upon common evidence, the learned trial Court ought not to have
separated the supplementary challan from the main challan and should have
proceeded with a joint trial. However, this Court does not find any merit in the
aforesaid contention. A perusal of the record would show that the challan
against respondent No.2-Amit Kumar was presented before the trial Court on
27.11.2024 and charges against him were framed on 14.02.2025. Thereafter,
the prosecution led substantial evidence and as many as 11 prosecution
witnesses stood examined. It is only subsequently that the supplementary
challan against co-accused Kulwinder Singh and Gurjant Singh came to be
presented on 10.03.2026. Thus, by the time the supplementary challan was
filed, the trial qua respondent No.2 had substantially progressed. The inevitable
consequence of tagging the supplementary challan with the main challan at
such an advanced stage would have been reopening of the proceedings and
virtually compelling respondent No.2 to undergo a de novo trial. The learned
trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has rightly taken into
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -7-
consideration the stage of the proceedings as well as the prejudice likely to be
caused on account of avoidable delay in conclusion of the trial.
8. Though Section 223 of Cr.P.C. (which corresponds to Section 243
of BNSS) contemplates joint trial of persons accused of offences committed in
the course of same transaction, the said provision is merely enabling in nature
and cannot be construed to mean that in every case joint trial is mandatory
irrespective of the attending facts and circumstances. The criminal Court
retains ample discretion to order separate trial where the facts of the case so
justify. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in
Kuldeep and others v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-16186 of 2014 decided on
16.05.2014, wherein this Court upheld the order splitting the trial at an
advanced stage of proceedings and observed that there clearly vests discretion
with the trial Court to adopt such a course of splitting the trial under Section
317 of Cr.P.C. It was further held that where the proceedings against some
accused persons have substantially progressed, the trial Court is justified in
separating the trial so as to avoid unnecessary delay and prejudice. Reliance
can also be placed upon Bhanumati Devi (Nath) v. State of Tripura, 2001
Cri.L.J. 3770, wherein it was held by the High Court of Gauhati that in criminal
proceedings, it is the accused who is tried and not the case as a whole and,
therefore, separate trials are legally permissible where the circumstances so
require. Similarly, in Allauddin Shah and another v. State of West Bengal,
1999 (4) AICLR 580, the Calcutta High Court recognised the power of the
criminal Court to separate trials and held that no accused has a vested right to
insist upon a joint trial in all circumstances. It was further observed that
separate trial can always be directed where continuation of joint proceedings is
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27739-2026 (O&M) -8-
likely to cause delay and prejudice.
9. In the present case, the learned trial Court has exercised its judicial
discretion in a fair and reasonable manner. No material has been brought on
record to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from perversity, patent
illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The apprehension expressed by learned
counsel for the petitioner regarding possibility of conflicting judgments also
does not impress this Court. Merely because separate trials are ordered would
not ipso facto lead to inconsistent findings, particularly when the criminal law
itself recognises the permissibility of separate trials in appropriate cases.
10. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no infirmity much less illegality in the
impugned order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Malerkotla. Hence, finding no merit in the petition, the same is
hereby dismissed.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
18.05.2026
Waseem Ansari
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.05.19 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
