NIKHIL ALIAS MOTA vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/16216/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010488812026

Filing Number

CRM-M/21150/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/16216/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIKHIL ALIAS MOTA

    Adv. ROHIT MITTAL

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M No. 16216 of 2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to petitioner Nikhil alias Mota, accused in an assault case where he allegedly participated in a group attack with iron rods. The court found that despite serious charges under BNS sections, the petitioner had spent 4+ months in custody, bore minimal direct culpability (only carrying an iron rod, not causing the serious injury), and the sole evidence against him was a co-accused's disclosure statement recorded while in police custody—questionable for admissibility. The court emphasized bail as the general rule, noting investigation completion, trial at initial stage, and absence of tampering risks, while citing Supreme Court precedent on speedy trial rights and low conviction rates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/16216/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M No. 16216 of 2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to petitioner Nikhil alias Mota, accused in an assault case where he allegedly participated in a group attack with iron rods. The court found that despite serious charges under BNS sections, the petitioner had spent 4+ months in custody, bore minimal direct culpability (only carrying an iron rod, not causing the serious injury), and the sole evidence against him was a co-accused's disclosure statement recorded while in police custody—questionable for admissibility. The court emphasized bail as the general rule, noting investigation completion, trial at initial stage, and absence of tampering risks, while citing Supreme Court precedent on speedy trial rights and low conviction rates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case