SUKHPAL @ BABBU vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/12213/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010352392026

Filing Number

CRM-M/14193/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/12213/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

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.SUKHPAL @ BABBU

    Adv. GURINDER SINGH DHOT

  2. 2.SUKHPAL@BABBU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-12213-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Sukhpal @ Babbu, accused of supplying intoxicating tablets that allegedly caused a death. The court found insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the supply (only call records and an inadmissible disclosure statement), no incriminating recovery, and noted the petitioner had spent 3.5 months in custody with minimal criminal history. Emphasizing that bail is the rule and detention the exception, and considering the trial's early stage with no witnesses examined, the court ordered release on personal and surety bonds subject to standard conditions prohibiting witness tampering and foreign travel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/12213/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-12213-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Sukhpal @ Babbu, accused of supplying intoxicating tablets that allegedly caused a death. The court found insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the supply (only call records and an inadmissible disclosure statement), no incriminating recovery, and noted the petitioner had spent 3.5 months in custody with minimal criminal history. Emphasizing that bail is the rule and detention the exception, and considering the trial's early stage with no witnesses examined, the court ordered release on personal and surety bonds subject to standard conditions prohibiting witness tampering and foreign travel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case