RAMPHAL @ MOLLU vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/22607/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010678162026

Filing Number

CRM-M/31140/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/22607/2026

Registration Date

22-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Coram

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMPHAL @ MOLLU

    Adv. SUNIL SAHARAN

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice H.S. GrewalView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M-22607-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Ramphal @ Mollu, accused in FIR No.14 for alleged robbery and assault (Sections 323, 325, 34, 307 IPC). Justice H.S. Grewal found that no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner, he had been in custody for over three months, was not involved in other cases, and trial conclusion would take considerable time. The court held that continuous detention would not serve justice and granted bail on furnishing requisite bonds, noting "bail is rule and jail is exception," while reserving the state's right to seek bail cancellation if the petitioner commits further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/22607/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M-22607-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Ramphal @ Mollu, accused in FIR No.14 for alleged robbery and assault (Sections 323, 325, 34, 307 IPC). Justice H.S. Grewal found that no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner, he had been in custody for over three months, was not involved in other cases, and trial conclusion would take considerable time. The court held that continuous detention would not serve justice and granted bail on furnishing requisite bonds, noting "bail is rule and jail is exception," while reserving the state's right to seek bail cancellation if the petitioner commits further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case