ABHISHEK vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/23324/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010576262026

Filing Number

CRM-M/25723/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/23324/2026

Registration Date

24-Apr-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABHISHEK

    Adv. SIMSI DHIR MALHOTRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/23324/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to petitioner Abhishek, who was charged with forging surety and bail documents in judicial proceedings. Justice Mandeep Pannu found that while the petitioner's role was limited to identifying the surety and attesting bonds, there was no evidence he prepared the forged documents or had prior knowledge of their fraudulent nature—matters for trial determination. Given that investigation was complete, the challan presented, no prosecution witnesses examined, and trial would take considerable time, the court deemed continued custody unjustified and ordered release on bail bonds and surety to the trial court's satisfaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/23324/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/23324/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to petitioner Abhishek, who was charged with forging surety and bail documents in judicial proceedings. Justice Mandeep Pannu found that while the petitioner's role was limited to identifying the surety and attesting bonds, there was no evidence he prepared the forged documents or had prior knowledge of their fraudulent nature—matters for trial determination. Given that investigation was complete, the challan presented, no prosecution witnesses examined, and trial would take considerable time, the court deemed continued custody unjustified and ordered release on bail bonds and surety to the trial court's satisfaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case