PARMOD KUMAR ALIAS LADI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/8077/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 08-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010180322026

Filing Number

CRM-M/5611/2026

Filing Date

31-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/8077/2026

Registration Date

10-Feb-2026

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARMOD KUMAR ALIAS LADI

    Adv. VAIBHAV NARANG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-8077-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Parmod Kumar's second bail petition under BNSS Section 483. Though charged with serious offenses including murder, unlawful assembly, and arms violations in connection with a fatal shooting, the court granted bail primarily due to prolonged detention (over 2 years, 2 months) with minimal trial progress (only 3 of 42 prosecution witnesses examined), coupled with circumstantial evidence and key witnesses not supporting the prosecution version. The court held that bail is the rule, not the exception, and pre-trial incarceration shouldn't become punitive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/8077/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-8077-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Parmod Kumar's second bail petition under BNSS Section 483. Though charged with serious offenses including murder, unlawful assembly, and arms violations in connection with a fatal shooting, the court granted bail primarily due to prolonged detention (over 2 years, 2 months) with minimal trial progress (only 3 of 42 prosecution witnesses examined), coupled with circumstantial evidence and key witnesses not supporting the prosecution version. The court held that bail is the rule, not the exception, and pre-trial incarceration shouldn't become punitive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case