JATIN vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/19387/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010585522026

Filing Number

CRM-M/26146/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/19387/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JATIN

    Adv. DHRUV GUPTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Summary: CRM-M/19387/2026 - JATIN v. STATE OF HARYANA Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Jatin's petition for pre-arrest bail in an NDPS Act case. Justice Sumeet Goel found prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to a narcotics supply chain based on co-accused disclosure statements alleging he supplied heroin, and noted the petitioner misused earlier interim bail by being arrested in another NDPS case with 150 grams of heroin in his possession. Key Reasoning: The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the contraband source and identify other conspirators in the organized drug network, and that granting bail would impede investigation and risk witness tampering. The serious nature of the charges and the petitioner's conduct while on interim protection justified denying anticipatory bail at this investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/19387/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: CRM-M/19387/2026 - JATIN v. STATE OF HARYANA Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Jatin's petition for pre-arrest bail in an NDPS Act case. Justice Sumeet Goel found prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to a narcotics supply chain based on co-accused disclosure statements alleging he supplied heroin, and noted the petitioner misused earlier interim bail by being arrested in another NDPS case with 150 grams of heroin in his possession. Key Reasoning: The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the contraband source and identify other conspirators in the organized drug network, and that granting bail would impede investigation and risk witness tampering. The serious nature of the charges and the petitioner's conduct while on interim protection justified denying anticipatory bail at this investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case