KARAMJIT KAUR vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/21320/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010629812026

Filing Number

CRM-M/28617/2026

Filing Date

16-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/21320/2026

Registration Date

17-Apr-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARAMJIT KAUR

    Adv. ADITYA SANGHI

  2. 2.KARAMJIT KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.KARAMJIT KAUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-21320-2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Karamjit Kaur, accused in an NDPS case involving 1,785 intoxicant tablets. The court found that the petitioner was nominated as an accused solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, which is inadmissible under the Evidence Act and Tofan Singh precedent. Despite the state's opposition citing serious charges and alleged criminal antecedents, the court held that prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21 rights and the "bail is a rule, jail is an exception" principle, especially since investigation was complete, charges remained unframed, and trial faced lengthy delays. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/21320/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-21320-2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Karamjit Kaur, accused in an NDPS case involving 1,785 intoxicant tablets. The court found that the petitioner was nominated as an accused solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, which is inadmissible under the Evidence Act and Tofan Singh precedent. Despite the state's opposition citing serious charges and alleged criminal antecedents, the court held that prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21 rights and the "bail is a rule, jail is an exception" principle, especially since investigation was complete, charges remained unframed, and trial faced lengthy delays. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case