HARVINDER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/3720/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010109162026

Filing Number

CRM-M/2121/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/3720/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARVINDER SINGH

    Adv. TARUN DEORA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed Harvinder Singh's second pre-arrest bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to FIR No. 341 for offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The court made absolute the interim anticipatory bail order dated 16.02.2026, holding that since the petitioner had joined the investigation and custodial interrogation was not necessary—given that evidence was documentary in nature, no money recovery was at issue, and there was no indication of tampering with evidence or witnesses—he was entitled to anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/3720/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed Harvinder Singh's second pre-arrest bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to FIR No. 341 for offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The court made absolute the interim anticipatory bail order dated 16.02.2026, holding that since the petitioner had joined the investigation and custodial interrogation was not necessary—given that evidence was documentary in nature, no money recovery was at issue, and there was no indication of tampering with evidence or witnesses—he was entitled to anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case