SANDEEP vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/20392/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010611692026

Filing Number

CRM-M/27631/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/20392/2026

Registration Date

10-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

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP

    Adv. PRABHJEET SINGH SULLAR

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 20392/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to petitioner Sandeep, who was arrested for allegedly murdering victim Azad in a revenge conspiracy. The court ruled that Sandeep's prolonged incarceration (over 3 years) without trial conclusion violated his Article 21 constitutional rights, particularly given that only 8 of 47 prosecution witnesses had been examined and the sole eyewitness failed to implicate him. Key Reasoning: Justice Manisha Batra emphasized that trial delay without the accused's fault entitles him to bail, and that continued detention would not serve justice. The court granted bail subject to personal and surety bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/20392/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 20392/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to petitioner Sandeep, who was arrested for allegedly murdering victim Azad in a revenge conspiracy. The court ruled that Sandeep's prolonged incarceration (over 3 years) without trial conclusion violated his Article 21 constitutional rights, particularly given that only 8 of 47 prosecution witnesses had been examined and the sole eyewitness failed to implicate him. Key Reasoning: Justice Manisha Batra emphasized that trial delay without the accused's fault entitles him to bail, and that continued detention would not serve justice. The court granted bail subject to personal and 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