KISHAN LAL @ KRISHAN vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/23934/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010713962026

Filing Number

CRM-M/33068/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/23934/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KISHAN LAL @ KRISHAN

    Adv. HARMANPREET SINGH

  2. 2.KISHAN LAL@KRISHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.KISHAN LAL@KRISHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/23934/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Kishan Lal's anticipatory bail petition after discovering that the Additional Sessions Judge had erroneously rejected his application despite granting bail to five co-accused for the same offences under FIR No. 48 (Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 117(2), 190, 191(3) BNS). The Additional Sessions Judge acknowledged the mistake occurred due to rush of work and oversight, tendering an unconditional apology. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh anticipatory bail application before the lower court for expeditious decision in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/23934/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/23934/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Kishan Lal's anticipatory bail petition after discovering that the Additional Sessions Judge had erroneously rejected his application despite granting bail to five co-accused for the same offences under FIR No. 48 (Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 117(2), 190, 191(3) BNS). The Additional Sessions Judge acknowledged the mistake occurred due to rush of work and oversight, tendering an unconditional apology. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh anticipatory bail application before the lower court for expeditious decision in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case