SUKHPREET SINGH SIDHU @ SUKH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/24315/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010718262026

Filing Number

CRM-M/33329/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/24315/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKHPREET SINGH SIDHU @ SUKH

    Adv. Manpreet Kaur

  2. 2.SUKHPREET SINGH SIDHU@SUKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.SUKHPREET SINGH SIDHU@SUKH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: CRM-M/24315/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Sukhpreet Singh Sidhu's anticipatory bail petition in a violent armed assault case. The petitioner was accused of participating in a March 2026 incident where multiple assailants attacked a group over a land dispute, resulting in one death. Though the petitioner's name didn't appear in the original FIR, a co-accused's disclosure statement implicated him as carrying a pistol and firing shots. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to establish his role, rejecting his arguments that the co-accused disclosure was inadmissible hearsay, finding the gravity of the offense and direct involvement allegations warranted denying anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/24315/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CRM-M/24315/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Sukhpreet Singh Sidhu's anticipatory bail petition in a violent armed assault case. The petitioner was accused of participating in a March 2026 incident where multiple assailants attacked a group over a land dispute, resulting in one death. Though the petitioner's name didn't appear in the original FIR, a co-accused's disclosure statement implicated him as carrying a pistol and firing shots. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to establish his role, rejecting his arguments that the co-accused disclosure was inadmissible hearsay, finding the gravity of the offense and direct involvement allegations warranted denying anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case