Supreme Court: Allowing the appeal assailing the Punjab and Haryana High Court order for recording factually incorrect observations, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., set aside the order and noted that the High Court had incorrectly recorded that the appellant was named in the FIR, whereas he had actually been implicated later based on a disclosure statement made by another accused in a separate FIR.
At the outset, the Court observed that the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court referred to certain aspects which cast doubt on whether the High Court had actually applied its mind to the matter at hand.
The Court noted that the order recorded that the appellant had been specifically named in the FIR and that a distinct and active role had been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. However, the Court noted that it was an admitted position that the appellant had not been named in the FIR initially and had been implicated later based on a disclosure statement made by another accused in a separate FIR.
The Court stated that the impugned order did not reflect proper application of mind to the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on facts and in accordance with the law.
[Sunny v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl.) No. 9116 of 2026, decided on 15-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: AOR Divyesh Pratap Singh with Amit Sangwan and Praveen Chauhan, Advocates
For the respondent: AOR Siddhanth Sharma with Vikram Choudhary, Advocate
