WASEEM ALIAS WASEEM AKRAM AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/14897/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010433542026

Filing Number

CRM-M/18369/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/14897/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.WASEEM ALIAS WASEEM AKRAM AND ANOTHER

    Adv. JAMSHED AHMED

  2. 2.WASEEM @ WASEEM AKRAM

  3. 3.AASIF

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.WASEEM @ WASEEM AKRAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/14897/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioners (Waseem and Aasif) on April 21, 2026, who had been in custody since September 30, 2025 (over 6 months) in an FIR involving allegations of violent assault at a madrasa in District Nuh. The court found that while 20 prosecution witnesses were cited, only 5 had been examined, indicating trial would extend considerably, and no evidence suggested the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence. The court noted that prior hostile witnesses and prolonged incarceration without substantial trial progress constituted substantial changed circumstances warranting bail despite this being a second bail petition and the seriousness of allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/14897/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/14897/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioners (Waseem and Aasif) on April 21, 2026, who had been in custody since September 30, 2025 (over 6 months) in an FIR involving allegations of violent assault at a madrasa in District Nuh. The court found that while 20 prosecution witnesses were cited, only 5 had been examined, indicating trial would extend considerably, and no evidence suggested the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence. The court noted that prior hostile witnesses and prolonged incarceration without substantial trial progress constituted substantial changed circumstances warranting bail despite this being a second bail petition and the seriousness of allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case