PARGAT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/14525/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010422162026

Filing Number

CRM-M/17757/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/14525/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARGAT SINGH

    Adv. SAHIL CHOUDHARY

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-14525-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to petitioner Pargat Singh in an NDPS Act case (Sections 22 and 29). Singh was charged based solely on co-accused disclosure statements implicating him in intoxicant tablet trafficking, despite not being present at the recovery site. The court found the sole evidence—a disclosure statement made during police custody—inadmissible under established Supreme Court precedent, as such statements cannot be used against other accused persons and lack substantive evidentiary value. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/14525/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-14525-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to petitioner Pargat Singh in an NDPS Act case (Sections 22 and 29). Singh was charged based solely on co-accused disclosure statements implicating him in intoxicant tablet trafficking, despite not being present at the recovery site. The court found the sole evidence—a disclosure statement made during police custody—inadmissible under established Supreme Court precedent, as such statements cannot be used against other accused persons and lack substantive evidentiary value. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case