SAJAN SINGH ALIAS GIANI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/19428/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010567752026

Filing Number

CRM-M/25253/2026

Filing Date

04-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/19428/2026

Registration Date

07-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

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAJAN SINGH ALIAS GIANI

    Adv. GURVINDER PAL SINGH GUJRAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/19428/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Sajan Singh, accused in an NDPS Act case involving 150 grams of heroin recovery, after he had been in custody for over 8 months. The court found that investigation was complete, charges framed, yet no prosecution witnesses examined; continued detention without imminent trial conclusion violated Article 21 rights. While the petitioner was named based on co-accused's disclosure statement, the court applied Supreme Court precedent establishing such statements are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and rejected the State's objection based solely on involvement in other cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/19428/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/19428/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Sajan Singh, accused in an NDPS Act case involving 150 grams of heroin recovery, after he had been in custody for over 8 months. The court found that investigation was complete, charges framed, yet no prosecution witnesses examined; continued detention without imminent trial conclusion violated Article 21 rights. While the petitioner was named based on co-accused's disclosure statement, the court applied Supreme Court precedent establishing such statements are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and rejected the State's objection based solely on involvement in other cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case