DALBIR KAUSHIK vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/24044/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010716432026

Filing Number

CRM-M/33161/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/24044/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

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.DALBIR KAUSHIK

    Adv. Sushil Sheoran

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/24044/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Dalbir Kaushik's anticipatory bail petition on 13.05.2026. Kaushik was accused of operating an unauthorized clinic without valid medical qualifications or drug licenses, violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court found the allegations serious, involving endangerment to public health, and determined that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation. The court balanced individual rights against societal interests, prioritizing fair investigation and public welfare over granting pre-arrest protection at the preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/24044/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/24044/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Dalbir Kaushik's anticipatory bail petition on 13.05.2026. Kaushik was accused of operating an unauthorized clinic without valid medical qualifications or drug licenses, violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court found the allegations serious, involving endangerment to public health, and determined that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation. The court balanced individual rights against societal interests, prioritizing fair investigation and public welfare over granting pre-arrest protection at the preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case