AMRITPAL SINGH @ AMRIT vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/14407/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010435262026

Filing Number

CRM-M/18443/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/14407/2026

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.AMRITPAL SINGH @ AMRIT

    Adv. K.S.KAHLON

  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/14407/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana ALLOWED Amritpal Singh's bail petition in an NDPS case involving 500 grams of heroin. Key Reasoning: The court granted bail based on prolonged incarceration (2 years 3 months), stalled trial progress (no prosecution witnesses examined in recent hearings), clean antecedents, co-accused already released on bail, and Supreme Court precedents holding that undue delay in trial can override Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions. The court emphasized that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied, and prolonged custody would constitute grave injustice when trial conclusion is distant. Conditions: Personal and surety bonds; no witness intimidation; address notification to trial court; no foreign travel without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/14407/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/14407/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana ALLOWED Amritpal Singh's bail petition in an NDPS case involving 500 grams of heroin. Key Reasoning: The court granted bail based on prolonged incarceration (2 years 3 months), stalled trial progress (no prosecution witnesses examined in recent hearings), clean antecedents, co-accused already released on bail, and Supreme Court precedents holding that undue delay in trial can override Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions. The court emphasized that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied, and prolonged custody would constitute grave injustice when trial conclusion is distant. Conditions: Personal and surety bonds; no witness intimidation; address notification to trial court; no foreign travel without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case