Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Harnam Singh Dhumma @ Baba Harnam Singh, Head of Damdami Taksal, challenging the order by which he was summoned as an additional accused in a 2016 murder and attempt to murder case arising out of an attack on the convoy of Baba Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale in Ludhiana.
Justice Manisha Batra of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding the petition on 6 August 2026, held that the trial court had rightly exercised its power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that the material available on record prima facie indicated the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy.
The Court observed that at the stage of exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not required. The Court only has to examine whether the evidence emerging during trial indicates the involvement of a person who was not initially arrayed as an accused.
Background Of The Case
The matter arose from FIR No. 47 dated 18.05.2016, registered at Police Station PAU, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 302, 307, 427, 212, 216, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The FIR was registered on the statement of Kulwinder Singh, who was working as the personal driver of Baba Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale. According to the prosecution version, on 18 May 2016, Baba Ranjit Singh along with Baba Bhupinder Singh and Sewadar Harinder Singh was travelling from Shri Parmeshwar Dwar, Patiala, towards village Isewal, District Ludhiana, to attend a Gurmat Samagam.
The convoy consisted of multiple vehicles, including a Toyota Land Cruiser in which Baba Ranjit Singh was travelling. The vehicles were allegedly attacked near Barewal Canal Bridge, Ludhiana, where a group of persons allegedly blocked the convoy and launched an assault.
As per the allegations, some persons stopped the vehicles on the pretext of offering sweet water and tried to identify the vehicle in which Baba Ranjit Singh was travelling. Thereafter, around 30 to 40 persons allegedly attacked the vehicles with weapons including rods, gandasis and baseball bats and also opened fire.
During the incident, Baba Bhupinder Singh suffered a gunshot injury on his head and later died, while Baba Ranjit Singh survived the attack. The complainant managed to drive the damaged vehicle for some distance before the occupants abandoned it and sought shelter near a nearby school.
How Harnam Singh Dhumma Came Into The Case
Initially, the petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR. During investigation, the complainant later made supplementary statements naming additional persons.
An application was moved before the trial court seeking summoning of additional accused persons, including Harnam Singh Dhumma. The allegation against him was that he was allegedly the main conspirator behind the incident due to previous enmity with Baba Ranjit Singh.
The complainant also alleged that the vehicle allegedly used by the assailants was registered in the name of the petitioner and that an arms licence belonging to another accused was recovered from that vehicle.
Earlier, the prayer for summoning the petitioner had been declined by the trial court. However, after further proceedings and recording of evidence, another application under Section 319 CrPC was filed. The trial court, through order dated 25 May 2026, allowed the application and summoned Harnam Singh Dhumma as an additional accused to face trial.
The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court challenging the said summoning order.
Petitioner’s Arguments Before High Court
The petitioner argued that the summoning order was legally unsustainable and had been passed without proper application of mind.
It was submitted that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and his name surfaced only after a considerable delay through supplementary statements. It was also argued that an earlier application seeking similar relief had already been rejected and therefore a subsequent application was not maintainable.
The petitioner further argued that merely because a vehicle belonging to him was allegedly connected with the incident, he could not be implicated without direct evidence showing his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
It was also contended that no fresh material had emerged and that the allegations against him were based only on repetition of earlier statements recorded during investigation.
High Court Examines Scope Of Section 319 CrPC
The High Court examined the legal position regarding Section 319 CrPC, which empowers courts to summon any person who is not already an accused if evidence recorded during inquiry or trial indicates that such person appears to have committed an offence.
Justice Manisha Batra referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein the scope of Section 319 CrPC was explained.
The High Court noted that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary and discretionary power which must be exercised carefully. However, the Court also observed that the provision exists to ensure that persons who appear to be involved in an offence do not escape trial merely because they were not included in the charge-sheet initially.
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, which explained that Section 319 CrPC enables courts to summon additional accused persons whenever evidence emerges during trial indicating their involvement.
The High Court observed that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage after filing of the charge-sheet and before pronouncement of judgment, provided evidence appears before the Court during trial.
Previous Rejection Does Not Bar Fresh Application Under Section 319
One of the important issues before the Court was whether the earlier rejection of an application seeking summoning of the petitioner prevented the trial court from considering a fresh application.
The High Court rejected this argument.
The Court held that an application under Section 193 CrPC filed at the stage of taking cognizance cannot be equated with an application under Section 319 CrPC filed after evidence has come on record during trial.
The Court observed that the two provisions operate at different stages and a previous order under Section 193 CrPC cannot operate as res judicata against a later application under Section 319 CrPC.
The Court further held that merely because an earlier Section 319 application concerning another accused did not seek summoning of the petitioner, it would not prevent the complainant or prosecution from moving a subsequent application when evidence emerged against him.
Court Finds Prima Facie Material Against Petitioner
After examining the material available on record, the High Court held that there was sufficient prima facie material indicating the alleged involvement of the petitioner.
The Court noted that although the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, his name subsequently appeared in the complainant’s statement, where allegations regarding his role as the alleged conspirator were made.
The Court also considered the fact that the vehicle allegedly used in the crime was registered in the petitioner’s name and that the arms licence of a co-accused was allegedly recovered from the vehicle.
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any final opinion regarding guilt or innocence and that the observations were limited only to deciding whether the summoning order required interference.
High Court Dismisses Petition
Concluding the matter, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the trial court’s order summoning Harnam Singh Dhumma as an additional accused did not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the summoning order passed by the trial court.
The judgment reiterates the importance of Section 319 CrPC as a mechanism to ensure that persons against whom evidence emerges during trial can also be brought before the court to face proceedings, while simultaneously maintaining that such extraordinary power must be exercised on the basis of strong and cogent material.