AJAY SHARMA vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/7428/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010218402026

Filing Number

CRM-M/7517/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/7428/2026

Registration Date

06-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney

Coram

Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAY SHARMA

    Adv. LAKSHAY BECTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Aaradhna SawhneyView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/7428/2026 Ajay Sharma v. State of Punjab The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to Ajay Sharma, an employee of a pharmaceutical company accused of selling sample medicines marked "not for sale" under IPC Sections 408, 420, and 120-B. The court confirmed interim bail granted on 09.02.2026, noting that Sharma had already joined the investigation and was not required for further investigation, with no recovery effected from him. Bail was confirmed subject to standard conditions including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses/evidence, and prohibition on leaving India without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/7428/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/7428/2026 Ajay Sharma v. State of Punjab The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to Ajay Sharma, an employee of a pharmaceutical company accused of selling sample medicines marked "not for sale" under IPC Sections 408, 420, and 120-B. The court confirmed interim bail granted on 09.02.2026, noting that Sharma had already joined the investigation and was not required for further investigation, with no recovery effected from him. Bail was confirmed subject to standard conditions including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses/evidence, and prohibition on leaving India without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case