JATIN SHARMA vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/16390/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010491352026

Filing Number

CRM-M/21286/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/16390/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Coram

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Bench Type

Single

Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JATIN SHARMA

    Adv. ASHOK GIRI

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice H.S. GrewalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-16390-2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted Jatin Sharma's anticipatory bail petition, making absolute the interim bail order from April 23, 2026. Sharma was charged with offenses under BNS sections 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 351(3), and 118(2) related to an FIR at Bilga Police Station, Jalandhar Rural. Since the State conceded that Sharma had cooperated with investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the court allowed the petition with conditions that he continue joining investigation as required and comply with bail terms, while clarifying that any arrest for newly added offenses requires prior court approval per Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/16390/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-16390-2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted Jatin Sharma's anticipatory bail petition, making absolute the interim bail order from April 23, 2026. Sharma was charged with offenses under BNS sections 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 351(3), and 118(2) related to an FIR at Bilga Police Station, Jalandhar Rural. Since the State conceded that Sharma had cooperated with investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the court allowed the petition with conditions that he continue joining investigation as required and comply with bail terms, while clarifying that any arrest for newly added offenses requires prior court approval per Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case