PARGAT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/24113/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010707802026

Filing Number

CRM-M/32722/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/24113/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARGAT SINGH

    Adv. HARPREET SINGH MULTANI

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/24113/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Pargat Singh's anticipatory bail plea in an NDPS Act drug trafficking case. Police recovered 128 kg and 660 grams of poppy husk (commercial quantity) from a vehicle owned by Singh; when intercepted, he attempted to flee and concealed the car at a relative's house. The court found prima facie evidence of Singh's involvement, his criminal antecedents (two prior Excise Act FIRs), and determined that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the larger drug trafficking conspiracy and identify co-conspirators, outweighing bail considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/24113/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/24113/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Pargat Singh's anticipatory bail plea in an NDPS Act drug trafficking case. Police recovered 128 kg and 660 grams of poppy husk (commercial quantity) from a vehicle owned by Singh; when intercepted, he attempted to flee and concealed the car at a relative's house. The court found prima facie evidence of Singh's involvement, his criminal antecedents (two prior Excise Act FIRs), and determined that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the larger drug trafficking conspiracy and identify co-conspirators, outweighing bail considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case