ASHMANI SINGH @ ASHWANI SINGH @ ASHMANI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/25377/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010754282026

Filing Number

CRM-M/34953/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25377/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Justice (To Be Nominated)

Coram

Justice (To Be Nominated)

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.17 - REGULAR BAIL PUNJAB (AGNST WOMEN) ( 286 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHMANI SINGH @ ASHWANI SINGH @ ASHMANI

    Adv. Hitesh Verma

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Justice (To Be Nominated)View PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/25377/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted interim bail for three months to Ashmani Singh, accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. The court found that the alleged victim (present in court) voluntarily accompanied the petitioner, has since borne his child who suffers from seizure disorder requiring parental care, and explicitly supports his bail plea and intent to marry him. Justice Neerja K. Kalson held that given the victim's consent, the child's medical needs, and her prior petition seeking protection from her own family, the petitioner deserved interim bail to facilitate marriage and proper childcare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25377/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/25377/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted interim bail for three months to Ashmani Singh, accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. The court found that the alleged victim (present in court) voluntarily accompanied the petitioner, has since borne his child who suffers from seizure disorder requiring parental care, and explicitly supports his bail plea and intent to marry him. Justice Neerja K. Kalson held that given the victim's consent, the child's medical needs, and her prior petition seeking protection from her own family, the petitioner deserved interim bail to facilitate marriage and proper childcare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case