KARAMDIN AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/12632/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010345292026

Filing Number

CRM-M/13862/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/12632/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARAMDIN AND ANOTHER

    Adv. NEHA

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    CRM-M/12632/2026 Summary: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed Karamdin and another's pre-arrest bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under Sections 329(3), 62, 303(2), 324(4), 324(5), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court made absolute the interim anticipatory bail granted on 21.04.2026, reasoning that petitioners already cooperated with investigation, cannot be forced to provide self-incriminating evidence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and investigation responsibility lies with the Investigating Officer, not the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/12632/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CRM-M/12632/2026 Summary: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed Karamdin and another's pre-arrest bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under Sections 329(3), 62, 303(2), 324(4), 324(5), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court made absolute the interim anticipatory bail granted on 21.04.2026, reasoning that petitioners already cooperated with investigation, cannot be forced to provide self-incriminating evidence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and investigation responsibility lies with the Investigating Officer, not the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case