IMRAN ALIAS BHABBAL vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/18463/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010538912026

Filing Number

CRM-M/23839/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/18463/2026

Registration Date

02-Apr-2026

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IMRAN ALIAS BHABBAL

    Adv. MOHD ZEESHAN KHAN

  2. 2.IMRAN@BHABBAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.IMRAN@BHABBAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Imran @ Bhabbal in a communal violence case (FIR No. 398/2023) involving unlawful assembly, rioting, and murder, where one person died. The court found that while petitioner was nominated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement (not the original FIR), no specific overt act was attributed to him, and absent individualized evidence in group violence cases, mere presence cannot establish equal culpability; coupled with prolonged custody and delayed trial (zero of 63 witnesses examined), bail was warranted on personal/surety bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/18463/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Imran @ Bhabbal in a communal violence case (FIR No. 398/2023) involving unlawful assembly, rioting, and murder, where one person died. The court found that while petitioner was nominated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement (not the original FIR), no specific overt act was attributed to him, and absent individualized evidence in group violence cases, mere presence cannot establish equal culpability; coupled with prolonged custody and delayed trial (zero of 63 witnesses examined), bail was warranted on personal/surety bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case