SUNIL SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/25981/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010747922026

Filing Number

CRM-M/34726/2026

Filing Date

01-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25981/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Coram

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39.13 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL (AGNST WOMEN) ( 285 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNIL SINGH

    Adv. YOGESH KUMAR ANEJA

  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

    Ms. Justice Kirti SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/25981/2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Sunil Singh's second petition for anticipatory bail in a domestic violence case involving charges of dowry demand and physical cruelty against his wife. The court found prima facie serious allegations substantiated by medical evidence showing the complainant suffered neck abrasions and hearing loss, rejecting the petitioner's claims of false implication based on matrimonial disputes. Emphasizing a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence, the court held that anticipatory bail—an extraordinary relief—requires exceptional circumstances, none of which existed here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25981/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/25981/2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Sunil Singh's second petition for anticipatory bail in a domestic violence case involving charges of dowry demand and physical cruelty against his wife. The court found prima facie serious allegations substantiated by medical evidence showing the complainant suffered neck abrasions and hearing loss, rejecting the petitioner's claims of false implication based on matrimonial disputes. Emphasizing a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence, the court held that anticipatory bail—an extraordinary relief—requires exceptional circumstances, none of which existed here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case