SUNIL SINGH NEGI ALIAS SUNIL KUMAR NEGI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/2301/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 20-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010068892026

Filing Number

CRM-M/54/2026

Filing Date

15-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/2301/2026

Registration Date

15-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNIL SINGH NEGI ALIAS SUNIL KUMAR NEGI

    Adv. FATEH SAHOTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Sunil Singh Negi's bail petition in a case involving recovery of 304 gms of heroin under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The court held that since the recovered quantity constitutes "commercial quantity," bail could only be granted if the Section-37 NDPS Act conditions were satisfied or exceptional circumstances warranted relaxation; neither applied here. The court rejected arguments about prolonged incarceration (7 months 23 days) and speedy trial violations, finding the custody period insufficient to constitute fundamental rights infringement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/2301/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Sunil Singh Negi's bail petition in a case involving recovery of 304 gms of heroin under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The court held that since the recovered quantity constitutes "commercial quantity," bail could only be granted if the Section-37 NDPS Act conditions were satisfied or exceptional circumstances warranted relaxation; neither applied here. The court rejected arguments about prolonged incarceration (7 months 23 days) and speedy trial violations, finding the custody period insufficient to constitute fundamental rights infringement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case