RAMANDEEP SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/21577/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010648582026

Filing Number

CRM-M/29687/2026

Filing Date

17-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/21577/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMANDEEP SINGH

    Adv. KANWALJEET SINGH BRAR

  2. 2.RAMANDEEP SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.RAMANDEEP SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-21577-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Ramandeep Singh's petition challenging cancellation of his bail in an NDPS Act case (FIR No. 239/2023). The Special Court had cancelled his bail and issued a non-bailable warrant when he failed to appear on 05.03.2026 due to unavoidable circumstances. Justice Sumeet Goel held that bail cancellation must serve its primary purpose—securing the accused's appearance—and found the petitioner's single absence inadvertent rather than deliberate, especially given his regular prior attendance and undertaking to appear regularly. The court set aside the cancellation order, subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial court by 16.05.2026, furnishing a personal undertaking for continued appearance, and depositing ₹20,000 as costs to the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/21577/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-21577-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Ramandeep Singh's petition challenging cancellation of his bail in an NDPS Act case (FIR No. 239/2023). The Special Court had cancelled his bail and issued a non-bailable warrant when he failed to appear on 05.03.2026 due to unavoidable circumstances. Justice Sumeet Goel held that bail cancellation must serve its primary purpose—securing the accused's appearance—and found the petitioner's single absence inadvertent rather than deliberate, especially given his regular prior attendance and undertaking to appear regularly. The court set aside the cancellation order, subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial court by 16.05.2026, furnishing a personal undertaking for continued appearance, and depositing ₹20,000 as costs to the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case