AMAN BANSAL vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/23585/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010704292026

Filing Number

CRM-M/32541/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/23585/2026

Registration Date

27-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Coram

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.14 - REGULAR BAIL PUNJAB (P.C. ACT) ( 236 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAN BANSAL

    Adv. SIMRANJEET SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Aman ChaudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/23585/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Aman Bansal on May 15, 2026, in a corruption case involving alleged fraudulent loan transactions. The court found that after 1 month 22 days in custody, with charges yet to be framed and 25-29 prosecution witnesses to be examined, further incarceration would violate the petitioner's Article 21 constitutional rights, particularly since the co-accused had already been granted bail and the petitioner had no involvement in other cases. The court ordered his release on furnishing appropriate bail/surety bonds, while clarifying that its observations were limited to bail proceedings and would not prejudge trial merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/23585/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/23585/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Aman Bansal on May 15, 2026, in a corruption case involving alleged fraudulent loan transactions. The court found that after 1 month 22 days in custody, with charges yet to be framed and 25-29 prosecution witnesses to be examined, further incarceration would violate the petitioner's Article 21 constitutional rights, particularly since the co-accused had already been granted bail and the petitioner had no involvement in other cases. The court ordered his release on furnishing appropriate bail/surety bonds, while clarifying that its observations were limited to bail proceedings and would not prejudge trial merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case