KIRAT SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CRA-S/1108/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010524932026

Filing Number

CRA-S/23021/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRA-S/1108/2026

Registration Date

30-Mar-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney

Coram

Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

36.46-CRIMINAL APPEALS U/S 14A UNDER SC/ST ACT,1989 SEEKING ANTICIPATORY BAILS-CRIME AGAINST WOMEN ( 1426 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KIRAT SINGH

    Adv. ADITYA SANGHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Aaradhna SawhneyView PDF

    Case Summary: CRA-S/1108/2026 Court Decision (11.05.2026): The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to appellant Kirat Singh, who was arrested for alleged rape of a minor girl under BNS Sections 137, 96, 64(2)(m), 65(1), 308(2), 308(7), 61(2)(a), POCSO Act Sections 6 & 17, and SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v). Key Reasoning: The court found that since the victim (born 09.06.2010) turned hostile during trial and the RFSL forensic report detected semen only on the appellant's underwear but not on critical exhibits like vaginal swabs, continued custody would violate Article 21 rights and the principle that "bail is a general rule." Given the remote likelihood of trial completion, bail was granted subject to strict conditions including passport surrender, non-tampering with evidence, and regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA-S/1108/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRA-S/1108/2026 Court Decision (11.05.2026): The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to appellant Kirat Singh, who was arrested for alleged rape of a minor girl under BNS Sections 137, 96, 64(2)(m), 65(1), 308(2), 308(7), 61(2)(a), POCSO Act Sections 6 & 17, and SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v). Key Reasoning: The court found that since the victim (born 09.06.2010) turned hostile during trial and the RFSL forensic report detected semen only on the appellant's underwear but not on critical exhibits like vaginal swabs, continued custody would violate Article 21 rights and the principle that "bail is a general rule." Given the remote likelihood of trial completion, bail was granted subject to strict conditions including passport surrender, non-tampering with evidence, and regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case