BHUPINDER SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/18278/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010536702026

Filing Number

CRM-M/23730/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/18278/2026

Registration Date

02-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Coram

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHUPINDER SINGH

    Adv. JAGJIT SINGH GILL

  2. 2.BHUPINDER SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.BHUPINDER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Aman ChaudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/18278/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted absolute anticipatory bail to Bhupinder Singh in an NDPS Act case (FIR No. 70, Sections 21B/61/85) after he demonstrated full cooperation with the investigating agency following an interim bail order dated 06.04.2026. The court found insufficient evidence directly connecting the petitioner to the co-accused, noting his name surfaced only through a disclosure statement, and noted that custodial interrogation was no longer required. The bail remains conditional on continued cooperation with investigators, with liberty for the State to seek cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/18278/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/18278/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted absolute anticipatory bail to Bhupinder Singh in an NDPS Act case (FIR No. 70, Sections 21B/61/85) after he demonstrated full cooperation with the investigating agency following an interim bail order dated 06.04.2026. The court found insufficient evidence directly connecting the petitioner to the co-accused, noting his name surfaced only through a disclosure statement, and noted that custodial interrogation was no longer required. The bail remains conditional on continued cooperation with investigators, with liberty for the State to seek cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case