MANISH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/4255/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Feb-2026

CNR: PHHC010104592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/1949/2026

Filing Date

20-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/4255/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANISH

    Adv. KOMAL THAKUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-4255-2026 - MANISH v. STATE OF PUNJAB The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Manish, arrested for possession of 90 intoxicant tablets under NDPS Act sections. The court found that after 10+ months in custody, the recovered quantity was non-commercial, investigation was complete, and with only 5 of 9 prosecution witnesses examined, prolonged detention without prospect of trial conclusion violated Article 21 rights. The court rejected the state's argument about other criminal cases, holding that bail decisions must assess individual case circumstances, not merely criminal antecedents, applying the principle "bail is rule, jail is exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/4255/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-4255-2026 - MANISH v. STATE OF PUNJAB The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Manish, arrested for possession of 90 intoxicant tablets under NDPS Act sections. The court found that after 10+ months in custody, the recovered quantity was non-commercial, investigation was complete, and with only 5 of 9 prosecution witnesses examined, prolonged detention without prospect of trial conclusion violated Article 21 rights. The court rejected the state's argument about other criminal cases, holding that bail decisions must assess individual case circumstances, not merely criminal antecedents, applying the principle "bail is rule, jail is exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case