GURPREET SINGH ALIAS LABHI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/25974/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010774622026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36075/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25974/2026

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.GURPREET SINGH ALIAS LABHI

    Adv. SUKHWINDER SINGH

  2. 2.GURPREET SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.GURPREET SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/25974/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Gurpreet Singh Alias Labhi, who was arrested on 15.01.2025 in connection with FIR No.114 (murder and related offences arising from a violent land dispute incident). Justice Sumeet Goel held that despite the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner's prolonged incarceration of 1 year 3 months 26 days—combined with only minimal trial progress (47 prosecution witnesses cited but only one-and-a-half examined)—violated his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found no tangible evidence of absconding risk or witness tampering and imposed strict bail conditions including passport deposit, communication restrictions, and trial attendance obligations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25974/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/25974/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Gurpreet Singh Alias Labhi, who was arrested on 15.01.2025 in connection with FIR No.114 (murder and related offences arising from a violent land dispute incident). Justice Sumeet Goel held that despite the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner's prolonged incarceration of 1 year 3 months 26 days—combined with only minimal trial progress (47 prosecution witnesses cited but only one-and-a-half examined)—violated his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found no tangible evidence of absconding risk or witness tampering and imposed strict bail conditions including passport deposit, communication restrictions, and trial attendance obligations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case