SAGAR LAIAS BOBBY MALHOTRA vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/13641/2025

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010379682025

Filing Number

CRM-M/20132/2025

Filing Date

07-Mar-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/13641/2025

Registration Date

10-Mar-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Coram

Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAGAR LAIAS BOBBY MALHOTRA

    Adv. HITESH CHOPRA

  2. 2.SAGAR ALIAS BOBY MALHOTRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.SAGAR ALIAS BOBY MALHOTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice N.S. ShekhawatView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M/13641/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed bail petitions filed by Sagar @ Bobby Malhotra and Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka, who sought release in a 2018 murder case (FIR No. 264) involving the shooting of Gurdeep Singh. Justice N.S. Shekhawat held that while the petitioners had been in custody for extended periods, their extensive criminal histories, involvement in numerous pending cases, pattern of witness intimidation (evidenced by frequent acquittals), and serious charges warranted continued detention due to genuine risk of evidence tampering and witness influence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/13641/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M/13641/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed bail petitions filed by Sagar @ Bobby Malhotra and Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka, who sought release in a 2018 murder case (FIR No. 264) involving the shooting of Gurdeep Singh. Justice N.S. Shekhawat held that while the petitioners had been in custody for extended periods, their extensive criminal histories, involvement in numerous pending cases, pattern of witness intimidation (evidenced by frequent acquittals), and serious charges warranted continued detention due to genuine risk of evidence tampering and witness influence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case