AARIF vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/8963/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010260842026

Filing Number

CRM-M/9707/2026

Filing Date

12-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/8963/2026

Registration Date

13-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Coram

Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AARIF

    Adv. IMITYAZ HUSSAIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh BediView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/8963/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Aarif's bail petition in a murder case (FIR No.130, Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC). Though not named in the original FIR, Aarif was identified during investigation through a mobile phone video recorded by co-accused Saikul, which clearly showed him as one of the assailants in the fatal beating of truck driver Shaukeen. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that as a main accused with clear video evidence against him, Aarif was not entitled to bail despite lengthy trial proceedings and only 3 of 41 prosecution witnesses examined. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/8963/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/8963/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Aarif's bail petition in a murder case (FIR No.130, Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC). Though not named in the original FIR, Aarif was identified during investigation through a mobile phone video recorded by co-accused Saikul, which clearly showed him as one of the assailants in the fatal beating of truck driver Shaukeen. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that as a main accused with clear video evidence against him, Aarif was not entitled to bail despite lengthy trial proceedings and only 3 of 41 prosecution witnesses examined. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case