SHEKHAR vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/12083/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010360072026

Filing Number

CRM-M/14536/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/12083/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHEKHAR

    Adv. KUSHAGER GOYAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-12083/2026 Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Decision The court allowed the anticipatory bail petition and made the interim protection order absolute. The petitioner was accused in an FIR under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement. The court found no independent material evidence connecting the petitioner to the recovered heroin contraband. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court held that an unverified disclosure statement cannot serve as the sole ground to deny anticipatory bail, particularly when the accused cooperates with investigation. The petitioner must continue joining investigations and comply with bail conditions under BNSS Section 482(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/12083/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-12083/2026 Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Decision The court allowed the anticipatory bail petition and made the interim protection order absolute. The petitioner was accused in an FIR under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement. The court found no independent material evidence connecting the petitioner to the recovered heroin contraband. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court held that an unverified disclosure statement cannot serve as the sole ground to deny anticipatory bail, particularly when the accused cooperates with investigation. The petitioner must continue joining investigations and comply with bail conditions under BNSS Section 482(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case