CHARANJIT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/26562/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010771012026

Filing Number

CRM-M/35903/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26562/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHARANJIT SINGH

    Adv. KUSHAGRA MAHAJAN

  2. 2.CHARANJIT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.CHARANJIT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26562/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ALLOWED Charanjit Singh's bail petition, ordering his release on personal and surety bonds with conditions, despite charges under IPC Section 302 (murder) in connection with the death of Ankit Bawa. Key Reasoning: The court found that after 2 years, 1 month, and 13 days of custody, the evidence against the petitioner—relying solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement—was insufficient and credible. Critical factors included: no eyewitness testimony, no criminal history, no items to recover, no progress in trial (charges not yet framed, zero witnesses examined), and no risk of tampering or non-cooperation, thus violating the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26562/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26562/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ALLOWED Charanjit Singh's bail petition, ordering his release on personal and surety bonds with conditions, despite charges under IPC Section 302 (murder) in connection with the death of Ankit Bawa. Key Reasoning: The court found that after 2 years, 1 month, and 13 days of custody, the evidence against the petitioner—relying solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement—was insufficient and credible. Critical factors included: no eyewitness testimony, no criminal history, no items to recover, no progress in trial (charges not yet framed, zero witnesses examined), and no risk of tampering or non-cooperation, thus violating the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case