HIMANSHU vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/25878/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010771592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/35928/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25878/2026

Registration Date

06-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

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HIMANSHU

    Adv. RAJESH GOYAL

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M 25878/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Himanshu in an NDPS Act case involving tramadol tablets. The court found that the petitioner was implicated solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement with no direct recovery from his possession, and that similar co-accused had already been granted bail by the same court. Key Reasoning: Justice Sumeet Goel held that disclosure statements by co-accused are inherently weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. After suffering 3+ months incarceration with no corroborating evidence linking him to the contraband and no indication of flight risk, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were diluted. Regular bail was granted subject to standard conditions including monthly affidavits confirming no offence commission while on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25878/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M 25878/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Himanshu in an NDPS Act case involving tramadol tablets. The court found that the petitioner was implicated solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement with no direct recovery from his possession, and that similar co-accused had already been granted bail by the same court. Key Reasoning: Justice Sumeet Goel held that disclosure statements by co-accused are inherently weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. After suffering 3+ months incarceration with no corroborating evidence linking him to the contraband and no indication of flight risk, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were diluted. Regular bail was granted subject to standard conditions including monthly affidavits confirming no offence commission while on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case