Disposed

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2026CRR/1778/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant challenged the discharge of an accused in an FIR under IPC and NDPS sections, where the Sessions Judge relied on CCTV footage without noting when it was viewed, on what device, or who identified the persons shown. The High Court found the order cryptic, quashed it, and directed that CCTV footage be properly viewed and verified before accepting any discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned discharge order dated 17.01.2023 quashed; matter referred back to Sessions Court for reconsideration with directions.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRR No. 1778 of 2023

¶2

203

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRR No. 1778 of 2023

¶5

Date of Decision: 07.05.2026

Sukhwinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another …Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Arun Singla, Legal aid counsel for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
88	9.7.2022	Julkan	279, 427, 304 IPC and 29, 15/61/85
			of NDPS Act

¶17

Seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the petitioner-complainant has come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition.

¶18

The grievance of the complainant is that accused was discharged by Additional Sessions Judge based on the report filed by the police.

¶19

Accused Lovepreet Singh @ Lovely was found to be innocent on the ground that he was not found present at the spot on the place of occurrence in the CCTV footage, however the order does not refer that when and on which device the Court had seen the CCTV footage and who had identified the persons in the CCTV footage. Even the date of CCTV footage is not mentioned. Needless to say that CCTV footage has time lap which is visible on the video and it is very easy to decipher the date and time of video recording.

¶20

¶21

JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.14 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶22

CRR No. 1778 of 2023

¶23

As such, the order is cryptic and does not refer to the date and time and watching of the CCTV footage.

¶24

Given above, the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala is quashed and set aside. The matter is referred back to the Sessions Court with a direction that before accepting the application for discharge, the Court shall watch the CCTV footage and complainant shall be permitted to give assistance regarding identification of the people in the CCTV footage and State counsel through Investigator should also give assistance in this regard.

¶25

Petition is disposed of with the observations mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶26

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶27

07.05.2026 Jyoti Sharma

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶29

¶30

JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.14 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sewa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gentlemen Vs Udmi Ram and Ors.

Bijender Singh Vs Dilawar Singh and Another

Nihal Singh Vs Harpal Singh and Another

Lovely Tagra Alias Lovely Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another