SANDEEP SINGH @ SUNNY vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/11188/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 25-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010282262026

Filing Number

CRM-M/10822/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/11188/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP SINGH @ SUNNY

    Adv. PRABHJOT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/11188/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana GRANTED regular bail to Sandeep Singh @ Sunny in a case involving alleged assault causing serious injuries. The court found that after three months in custody, the petitioner—a first-time offender with clean antecedents—could not be indefinitely detained when investigation was complete, charges framed, and trial would take considerable time. The court held continued detention violated Article 21 constitutional rights, applying the principle that "bail is a rule, jail is an exception." Key Reasoning: The court noted discrepancies between the prosecution's allegations and the medical report, the unexplained five-day delay in registering the FIR, and potential matrimonial motivations behind the accusations. No useful custodial purpose remained once investigation concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/11188/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/11188/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana GRANTED regular bail to Sandeep Singh @ Sunny in a case involving alleged assault causing serious injuries. The court found that after three months in custody, the petitioner—a first-time offender with clean antecedents—could not be indefinitely detained when investigation was complete, charges framed, and trial would take considerable time. The court held continued detention violated Article 21 constitutional rights, applying the principle that "bail is a rule, jail is an exception." Key Reasoning: The court noted discrepancies between the prosecution's allegations and the medical report, the unexplained five-day delay in registering the FIR, and potential matrimonial motivations behind the accusations. No useful custodial purpose remained once investigation concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case