SANDEEP TYAGI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/9201/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 25-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010126592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/3033/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/9201/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP TYAGI

    Adv. SANDEEP SIWACH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 9201/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana GRANTED regular bail to both petitioners, Sandeep Tyagi and Manish @ Manish Dahiya, who were accused in a violent assault case involving armed attackers who beat complainants with iron rods and revolvers, causing injuries and theft of gold items worth Rs. 60,000. Key Reasoning: The court considered that the petitioners had been incarcerated for 8-10 months, no prosecution witnesses had been examined despite charges being framed, the trial would take considerable time, and one petitioner had no criminal record while the other was already on bail in three similar cases. The court emphasized that guilt determination would only occur after full trial evidence appreciation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/9201/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 9201/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana GRANTED regular bail to both petitioners, Sandeep Tyagi and Manish @ Manish Dahiya, who were accused in a violent assault case involving armed attackers who beat complainants with iron rods and revolvers, causing injuries and theft of gold items worth Rs. 60,000. Key Reasoning: The court considered that the petitioners had been incarcerated for 8-10 months, no prosecution witnesses had been examined despite charges being framed, the trial would take considerable time, and one petitioner had no criminal record while the other was already on bail in three similar cases. The court emphasized that guilt determination would only occur after full trial evidence appreciation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case