SANDEEP KUMAR vs STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH — CRA-D/149/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 21st April 2026.

CNR: PHHC010160902026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

18th March 2026

Filing Number

CRA-D/4650/2026

Filing Date

29-01-2026

Registration No

CRA-D/149/2026

Registration Date

30-01-2026

Judge

MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA , MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Coram

MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA , MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Bench Type

Double

Category

17.81-CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER NIA ACT,2019 SEEKING REGULAR BAILS-GENERAL ( 1423 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Petitioner(s)

SANDEEP KUMAR

Adv. HARLOVE SINGH RAJPUT

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

Orders

21-04-2026
MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA,MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Case Summary: CRA-D/149/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sandeep Kumar's bail appeal in a serious UAPA case involving bomb blasts at two clubs in Sector 26, Chandigarh on November 26, 2024. The court found Kumar actively facilitated the crime by providing his vehicle to co-accused bombers, staying with them during explosive procurement, and appearing in video evidence at explosive handover—rejecting arguments that investigation completion or delayed trial warranted bail. The court held that serious UAPA offenses warrant detention regardless of investigation status, and properly documented arrest grounds justified custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRA-D/149/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sandeep Kumar's bail appeal in a serious UAPA case involving bomb blasts at two clubs in Sector 26, Chandigarh on November 26, 2024. The court found Kumar actively facilitated the crime by providing his vehicle to co-accused bombers, staying with them during explosive procurement, and appearing in video evidence at explosive handover—rejecting arguments that investigation completion or delayed trial warranted bail. The court held that serious UAPA offenses warrant detention regardless of investigation status, and properly documented arrest grounds justified custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case