HARPREET SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/24043/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010718982026

Filing Number

CRM-M/33306/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/24043/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARPREET SINGH

    Adv. SATNAM SINGH GILL

  2. 2.HARPREET SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.HARPREET SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to Harpreet Singh in his third bail petition for an NDPS Act offense involving 71,540 intoxicating tablets recovered from his medical store. The court held that despite the commercial quantity of contraband and Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions, bail was warranted due to the petitioner's 3+ years incarceration, clean antecedents, minimal trial progress since the previous dismissal, and the prosecution's recent Section 319 application introducing further delays. The court emphasized that prolonged detention violates Article 21 constitutional rights and that bail is the general rule, not exception, particularly when trial completion is uncertain. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/24043/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to Harpreet Singh in his third bail petition for an NDPS Act offense involving 71,540 intoxicating tablets recovered from his medical store. The court held that despite the commercial quantity of contraband and Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions, bail was warranted due to the petitioner's 3+ years incarceration, clean antecedents, minimal trial progress since the previous dismissal, and the prosecution's recent Section 319 application introducing further delays. The court emphasized that prolonged detention violates Article 21 constitutional rights and that bail is the general rule, not exception, particularly when trial completion is uncertain. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case