ARJUN SAHANI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/7926/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010231222026

Filing Number

CRM-M/8260/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/7926/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARJUN SAHANI

    Adv. PARVEEN KAUSHIK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-7926/2026 Arjun Sahani v. State of Haryana The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Arjun Sahani's bail petition in a murder case (FIR No. 396, Section 302 IPC) involving the death of his wife, Jibchi Devi. The petitioner argued false implication, lack of concrete evidence, and prolonged custody (since November 2024), but the court held that prolonged detention and trial duration alone cannot justify bail for serious offences. The court found the allegations grave and serious, rejected the medical grounds claim (adequate treatment provided in custody), and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the severity of the charge against the accused outweighs bail considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/7926/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-7926/2026 Arjun Sahani v. State of Haryana The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Arjun Sahani's bail petition in a murder case (FIR No. 396, Section 302 IPC) involving the death of his wife, Jibchi Devi. The petitioner argued false implication, lack of concrete evidence, and prolonged custody (since November 2024), but the court held that prolonged detention and trial duration alone cannot justify bail for serious offences. The court found the allegations grave and serious, rejected the medical grounds claim (adequate treatment provided in custody), and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the severity of the charge against the accused outweighs bail considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case