MAN SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/18068/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010533652026

Filing Number

CRM-M/23552/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/18068/2026

Registration Date

01-Apr-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAN SINGH

    Adv. Gurinder Singh Dhillon

  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

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-18068/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Man Singh in a narcotics case. Singh was arrested based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no independent evidence linking him to 621 intoxicant capsules recovered from the co-accused. The court found that co-accused disclosure statements are inadmissible under the Evidence Act and NDPS Act precedents, and that Singh's prolonged custody (5+ months) without trial completion violated Article 21 rights, especially given his clean antecedents and no recovery from his possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/18068/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-18068/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Man Singh in a narcotics case. Singh was arrested based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no independent evidence linking him to 621 intoxicant capsules recovered from the co-accused. The court found that co-accused disclosure statements are inadmissible under the Evidence Act and NDPS Act precedents, and that Singh's prolonged custody (5+ months) without trial completion violated Article 21 rights, especially given his clean antecedents and no recovery from his possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case