Ajit Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M-24255-2026.

Date of Decision: 01.05.2026.

Ajit Singh ....Petitioner.

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....Respondent.

*** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ---

Present:

Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking extension of two months time i.e. from 20.05.2026 to 20.07.2026 granted vide order dated 10.02.2026 passed by this Court, whereby three months time was granted to the petitioner to visit Canada from 20.02.2026 to 20.05.2026 in case FIR No.18 dated 13.12.2017 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station NRI District SAS Nagar Mohali. Vide order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Court in CRM-M-62785-2025, petitioner was granted liberty to travel abroad (Canada) and for the said purpose, trial Court was directed to release the petitioner's Passport also from the period 20.02.2026 to 20.05.2026. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant petition has been filed with the prayer that time period for stay of petitioner in Canada

CRM-M-24255-2026 -2be extended for two months more because there was a woman namely Kartar Kaur, who expired and she was treated like mother by the petitioner. Therefore, for performing the social rituals and certain duties being head of the Gurudwara, devoted much of the time in India itself after returning from Canada. Therefore, the purpose for which the petitioner was granted permission by this Court, vide order dated 10.02.2026, could not be achieved. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

5.

On being asked by the Court, it is informed by learned State counsel that even challan has not been submitted before the Court against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no likelihood of even starting of the proceedings before the trial Court. It is also informed that at the first instance, petitioner was found innocent by the Investigating Agency. Learned State counsel, therefore, is not in a position to raise any serious objection in allowing the prayer for extension of time period for the petitioner to stay for two more months in Canada beyond 25.05.2026.

6.

I have examined the contents of the petition and the appended record thereto and also heard the respective counsel. 7.

There is no material/evidence to disbelieve the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner or to doubt his bona fide. Had there been any plan to play mischief with the investigation or proceedings, which he is facing, there was no definite reason with the petitioner to seek permission for extension of time period for staying in Canada. Therefore, believing the

CRM-M-24255-2026 -3contention of the petitioner to be correct, this Court allows the prayer made in the instant petition and accordingly, time period which has been mentioned in the previous order dated 10.02.2026 passed in CRM-M62785-2025 for returning back to India before 25.05.2026 be treated as 25.07.2026.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 01.05.2026 jitender Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/ No Whether Reportable :

Yes/ No