MUSTAK ALI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/11931/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010342012026

Filing Number

CRM-M/13693/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/11931/2026

Registration Date

27-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

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUSTAK ALI

    Adv. Ranbir Singh Pathania

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/11931/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Mustak Ali, who was charged with causing injuries using a kirch and damaging property in an assault case. The court found that Ali had been in custody for over two months, a challan had been filed, charges remained unframed, and co-accused persons had already received anticipatory bail, rendering continued detention unjustifiable. The court emphasized that prolonged detention without imminent trial conclusion violates Article 21 rights, particularly given the parties' settlement and the principle that "bail is a rule, jail is an exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/11931/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/11931/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Mustak Ali, who was charged with causing injuries using a kirch and damaging property in an assault case. The court found that Ali had been in custody for over two months, a challan had been filed, charges remained unframed, and co-accused persons had already received anticipatory bail, rendering continued detention unjustifiable. The court emphasized that prolonged detention without imminent trial conclusion violates Article 21 rights, particularly given the parties' settlement and the principle that "bail is a rule, jail is an exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case