MANISH LAL @ NAGPAL vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/25438/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010757322026

Filing Number

CRM-M/35077/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25438/2026

Registration Date

04-May-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

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANISH LAL @ NAGPAL

    Adv. AMIT KUMAR SAINI

  2. 2.MANISH LAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/25438/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the bail petition of Manish Lal @ Nagpal, accused in a dacoity case arising from FIR No. 0118 (July 2025) involving charges under Sections 109, 310(2), and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner, incarcerated for over 10.5 months, was granted bail considering: completed investigation, no evidence tampering risks, co-accused receiving similar relief, and trial's slow progress (zero witnesses examined of 16 prosecution witnesses). Conditions: The petitioner must furnish personal and surety bonds, not intimidate witnesses, maintain address notification, and seek court permission before leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25438/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/25438/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the bail petition of Manish Lal @ Nagpal, accused in a dacoity case arising from FIR No. 0118 (July 2025) involving charges under Sections 109, 310(2), and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner, incarcerated for over 10.5 months, was granted bail considering: completed investigation, no evidence tampering risks, co-accused receiving similar relief, and trial's slow progress (zero witnesses examined of 16 prosecution witnesses). Conditions: The petitioner must furnish personal and surety bonds, not intimidate witnesses, maintain address notification, and seek court permission before leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case