KHALID ALIAS KHALID HUSSAIN ALIAS LAKDA vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/15086/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010448772026

Filing Number

CRM-M/19088/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/15086/2026

Registration Date

17-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.KHALID ALIAS KHALID HUSSAIN ALIAS LAKDA

    Adv. JAMSHED AHMED

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/15086/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Khalid Alias Khalid Hussain Alias Lakda, who had been in custody for 6 months and 20 days. The court found that further detention as an undertrial was unwarranted, noting no evidence of absconding risk or evidence tampering, and that with only 5 of 20 prosecution witnesses examined, trial completion would take considerable time. Key Reasoning: The court declined to assess the merit of allegations or hostile witness claims at the bail stage, reserving such determinations for trial. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including non-interference with evidence, court attendance, and passport deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/15086/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/15086/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Khalid Alias Khalid Hussain Alias Lakda, who had been in custody for 6 months and 20 days. The court found that further detention as an undertrial was unwarranted, noting no evidence of absconding risk or evidence tampering, and that with only 5 of 20 prosecution witnesses examined, trial completion would take considerable time. Key Reasoning: The court declined to assess the merit of allegations or hostile witness claims at the bail stage, reserving such determinations for trial. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including non-interference with evidence, court attendance, and passport deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case