PRABHJOT vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/3944/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-Feb-2026

CNR: PHHC010117362026

Filing Number

CRM-M/2587/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/3944/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Coram

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRABHJOT

    Adv. ROHIT KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Aman ChaudharyView PDF

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Prabhjot in a fraud case (FIR No. 0289, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC) after 7 months and 20 days of custody. The court found that prolonged incarceration violated Article 21 rights, especially considering charges were framed with only 3 of 17 witnesses examined, the co-accused received bail, and trial completion would take considerable time. Bail was conditional on furnishing surety bonds and adhering to standard conditions including court appearance, no witness intimidation, and no evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/3944/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Prabhjot in a fraud case (FIR No. 0289, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC) after 7 months and 20 days of custody. The court found that prolonged incarceration violated Article 21 rights, especially considering charges were framed with only 3 of 17 witnesses examined, the co-accused received bail, and trial completion would take considerable time. Bail was conditional on furnishing surety bonds and adhering to standard conditions including court appearance, no witness intimidation, and no evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case