HARINDER SINGH ALIAS ROHIT vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/26186/2026
Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010777322026
Filing Number
CRM-M/36245/2026
Filing Date
06-May-2026
Registration No
CRM-M/26186/2026
Registration Date
07-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
14-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--ALLOWED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HARINDER SINGH ALIAS ROHIT
Adv. HARPAL SINGH SIDHU
-
2.STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB
-
2.STATE OF PUNJAB
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-May-2026
Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF
Case Summary: CRM-M-26186-2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to Harinder Singh (alias Rohit) in a case involving charges of extortion, criminal intimidation, and Arms Act violations arising from alleged gunshots fired at a complainant's residence. Key Reasoning: The Court found that after over one year in custody, the petitioner had only his own police-recorded confessional statement against him, with no eyewitness identification, no weapon recovery, no evidence of crime syndicate involvement, and investigation already complete. Applying Supreme Court principles emphasizing that bail is the rule (not exception) and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Court concluded continued detention would serve no purpose and would constitute grave injustice, particularly given India's low conviction rates. Conditions: Release on personal and surety bonds, with restrictions against tampering with witnesses, maintaining address notification, and not leaving India without trial court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRM-M/26186/2026
Case Summary: CRM-M-26186-2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to Harinder Singh (alias Rohit) in a case involving charges of extortion, criminal intimidation, and Arms Act violations arising from alleged gunshots fired at a complainant's residence. Key Reasoning: The Court found that after over one year in custody, the petitioner had only his own police-recorded confessional statement against him, with no eyewitness identification, no weapon recovery, no evidence of crime syndicate involvement, and investigation already complete. Applying Supreme Court principles emphasizing that bail is the rule (not exception) and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Court concluded continued detention would serve no purpose and would constitute grave injustice, particularly given India's low conviction rates. Conditions: Release on personal and surety bonds, with restrictions against tampering with witnesses, maintaining address notification, and not leaving India without trial court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts