SANJAY @ MASUM @ DEEPAK vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/7048/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010208132026

Filing Number

CRM-M/7001/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/7048/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY @ MASUM @ DEEPAK

    Adv. MANMEET SINGH RANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-7048/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to 23-year-old Sanjay @ Masum @ Deepak, who was charged with attempted murder (IPC §307), wrongful restraint (§341), and Arms Act violations after allegedly firing a pistol at a complainant in September 2023, causing facial injury. The court determined bail was appropriate because the petitioner had been incarcerated for over 2 years and 8 months with only 10 of 23 prosecution witnesses examined; crucially, both key witnesses (the injured complainant and eye-witness) had already testified, eliminating concerns about witness intimidation or evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/7048/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-7048/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to 23-year-old Sanjay @ Masum @ Deepak, who was charged with attempted murder (IPC §307), wrongful restraint (§341), and Arms Act violations after allegedly firing a pistol at a complainant in September 2023, causing facial injury. The court determined bail was appropriate because the petitioner had been incarcerated for over 2 years and 8 months with only 10 of 23 prosecution witnesses examined; crucially, both key witnesses (the injured complainant and eye-witness) had already testified, eliminating concerns about witness intimidation or 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