AYAN CHOUDHARY vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/11994/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010351682026

Filing Number

CRM-M/14142/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/11994/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Coram

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.18 - REGULAR BAIL HARYANA (AGNST WOMEN) ( 287 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AYAN CHOUDHARY

    Adv. Rajender Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Kirti SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/11994/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Ayan Choudhary (age 19), accused of offences under BNS sections 137, 49, 61, 319(2), and POCSO Act section 6 related to a minor's disappearance. The court found that despite serious allegations, Choudhary had already served 6 months 11 days in custody, no prosecution witnesses had been examined post-charge framing, and no evidence suggested flight risk or witness tampering. The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without imminent trial conclusion would be punitive and contrary to Article 21's guarantee of speedy trial, applying the principle "bail is the rule, jail the exception." Bail was granted with conditions including non-tampering of evidence and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/11994/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/11994/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Ayan Choudhary (age 19), accused of offences under BNS sections 137, 49, 61, 319(2), and POCSO Act section 6 related to a minor's disappearance. The court found that despite serious allegations, Choudhary had already served 6 months 11 days in custody, no prosecution witnesses had been examined post-charge framing, and no evidence suggested flight risk or witness tampering. The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without imminent trial conclusion would be punitive and contrary to Article 21's guarantee of speedy trial, applying the principle "bail is the rule, jail the exception." Bail was granted with conditions including non-tampering of evidence and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case