SUKHWINDER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/17759/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010535752026

Filing Number

CRM-M/23663/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/17759/2026

Registration Date

30-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKHWINDER SINGH

    Adv. JASKIRAT SINGH DHALIWAL

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/17759/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to Sukhwinder Singh in an FIR involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 191(3), 190, and later 117(2), 118(2)). The petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail on 24.04.2026 with conditions to furnish bonds and join investigation. The court made the interim bail absolute after finding that the petitioner had complied with investigation requirements and custodial interrogation was not required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/17759/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/17759/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to Sukhwinder Singh in an FIR involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 191(3), 190, and later 117(2), 118(2)). The petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail on 24.04.2026 with conditions to furnish bonds and join investigation. The court made the interim bail absolute after finding that the petitioner had complied with investigation requirements and custodial interrogation was not required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case