SUMIT KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/25869/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010772272026

Filing Number

CRM-M/35960/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25869/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUMIT KUMAR

    Adv. RISHI PAL SINGH GARTTAN

  2. 2.SUMITG KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.SUMITG KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 25869/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana GRANTED regular bail to Sumit Kumar, arrested in an excise violation case involving mis-branded liquor operations under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The court ordered his release on bail bonds, considering his extended incarceration of over 2 months without substantial trial progress, absence of flight risk, and no involvement in other cases. Key Reasoning: The court found that continued detention was unwarranted, noting the rival contentions about mis-branding raised debatable trial issues unsuitable for pre-trial adjudication. The judgment emphasized that successive bail petitions are maintainable when substantial changes in circumstances exist, citing precedent principles on undertrial detention duration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25869/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 25869/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana GRANTED regular bail to Sumit Kumar, arrested in an excise violation case involving mis-branded liquor operations under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The court ordered his release on bail bonds, considering his extended incarceration of over 2 months without substantial trial progress, absence of flight risk, and no involvement in other cases. Key Reasoning: The court found that continued detention was unwarranted, noting the rival contentions about mis-branding raised debatable trial issues unsuitable for pre-trial adjudication. The judgment emphasized that successive bail petitions are maintainable when substantial changes in circumstances exist, citing precedent principles on undertrial detention duration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case