GURPREET SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/27294/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010287232026

Filing Number

CRM-M/11035/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/27294/2026

Registration Date

12-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURPREET SINGH

    Adv. Randeep Singh

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-27294/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Gurpreet Singh's anticipatory bail petition. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj held that custodial interrogation is essential to uncover truth in this serious firearms case involving attempt to murder charges, and that the petitioner does not qualify for anticipatory bail protection. Key Facts & Reasoning: Singh was accused of leading an armed attack on August 7, 2025, during which the complainant sustained serious firearm injuries to his chest, abdomen, and arm. While Singh's counsel argued he was falsely implicated and himself injured, the court found the allegations serious and noted investigation was still in early stages with key evidence (country-made pistol) yet to be recovered. The court emphasized that effective police interrogation would be compromised if Singh had pre-arrest bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/27294/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-27294/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Gurpreet Singh's anticipatory bail petition. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj held that custodial interrogation is essential to uncover truth in this serious firearms case involving attempt to murder charges, and that the petitioner does not qualify for anticipatory bail protection. Key Facts & Reasoning: Singh was accused of leading an armed attack on August 7, 2025, during which the complainant sustained serious firearm injuries to his chest, abdomen, and arm. While Singh's counsel argued he was falsely implicated and himself injured, the court found the allegations serious and noted investigation was still in early stages with key evidence (country-made pistol) yet to be recovered. The court emphasized that effective police interrogation would be compromised if Singh had pre-arrest bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case