MAYA RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/26534/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010761642026

Filing Number

CRM-M/35409/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26534/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAYA RAM

    Adv. MUNISH BEHL

  2. 2.MAYA RAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.MAYA RAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M/26534/2026: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Maya Ram, arrested in April 2025 for alleged NDPS Act violations involving tramadol and alprazolam. Despite Section 37 of the NDPS Act's stringent bail restrictions, Justice Sumeet Goel held that prolonged incarceration (over 1 year) combined with trial delays—for which the accused bears no responsibility—violates the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The court balanced statutory drug-control objectives against the accused's right to expeditious justice, releasing the petitioner on bail with standard conditions including monthly affidavits and no evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26534/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M/26534/2026: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Maya Ram, arrested in April 2025 for alleged NDPS Act violations involving tramadol and alprazolam. Despite Section 37 of the NDPS Act's stringent bail restrictions, Justice Sumeet Goel held that prolonged incarceration (over 1 year) combined with trial delays—for which the accused bears no responsibility—violates the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The court balanced statutory drug-control objectives against the accused's right to expeditious justice, releasing the petitioner on bail with standard conditions including monthly affidavits and no evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case