INDERJEET SINGH ALIAS INDER vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/13199/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010373472026

Filing Number

CRM-M/15218/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/13199/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.INDERJEET SINGH ALIAS INDER

    Adv. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu

  2. 2.INDERJEET SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.INDERJEET SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-13199/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Inderjeet Singh, who was charged with mobile phone snatching, causing serious injuries with intent to kill, and vehicle theft under BNS Sections 109, 304(2), and 317(2)/118(2). The court found that after 20 months in custody, with a completed investigation and framed charges, no prosecution witnesses had been examined; consequently, the trial would take considerable time. Emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, the court held that indefinite detention without trial prospects violates fundamental rights and violates the principle "bail is a rule, jail is an exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/13199/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-13199/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Inderjeet Singh, who was charged with mobile phone snatching, causing serious injuries with intent to kill, and vehicle theft under BNS Sections 109, 304(2), and 317(2)/118(2). The court found that after 20 months in custody, with a completed investigation and framed charges, no prosecution witnesses had been examined; consequently, the trial would take considerable time. Emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, the court held that indefinite detention without trial prospects violates fundamental rights and violates the principle "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