GURPREET SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/21372/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010633932026

Filing Number

CRM-M/28851/2026

Filing Date

16-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/21372/2026

Registration Date

18-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

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURPREET SINGH

    Adv. AMIT ARORA

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/21372/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Gurpreet Singh in a heroin possession case (15 grams, non-commercial quantity) under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The court found that Singh had been in custody for over two years with investigation complete, charges framed, and only 2 of 9 prosecution witnesses examined, making prolonged detention without imminent trial conclusion a violation of Article 21 rights. The court rejected the State's argument regarding involvement in other cases, holding that bail cannot be denied solely on criminal antecedents without examining case-specific circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/21372/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/21372/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Gurpreet Singh in a heroin possession case (15 grams, non-commercial quantity) under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The court found that Singh had been in custody for over two years with investigation complete, charges framed, and only 2 of 9 prosecution witnesses examined, making prolonged detention without imminent trial conclusion a violation of Article 21 rights. The court rejected the State's argument regarding involvement in other cases, holding that bail cannot be denied solely on criminal antecedents without examining case-specific circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case