AMARJIT SINGH ALIAS AMBE vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/18455/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010539092026

Filing Number

CRM-M/23857/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/18455/2026

Registration Date

02-Apr-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Coram

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.17 - REGULAR BAIL PUNJAB (AGNST WOMEN) ( 286 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMARJIT SINGH ALIAS AMBE

    Adv. MOHD. SALIM

  2. 2.AMARJEET SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Ms. Justice Kirti SinghView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Amarjit Singh @ Ambe, accused of kidnapping/enticing a 15-16-year-old girl under IPC Sections 363, 366A, and POCSO. The court found that while only 5 of 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined and trial conclusion was not imminent, the petitioner had already served 1 year, 5 months, and 29 days in custody. The court held that continued detention would violate Article 21's guarantee of personal liberty and the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," particularly given insufficient evidence of flight risk or witness tampering concerns. Bail was granted with standard conditions prohibiting evidence tampering and witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/18455/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Amarjit Singh @ Ambe, accused of kidnapping/enticing a 15-16-year-old girl under IPC Sections 363, 366A, and POCSO. The court found that while only 5 of 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined and trial conclusion was not imminent, the petitioner had already served 1 year, 5 months, and 29 days in custody. The court held that continued detention would violate Article 21's guarantee of personal liberty and the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," particularly given insufficient evidence of flight risk or witness tampering concerns. Bail was granted with standard conditions prohibiting evidence tampering and witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case