MANJOT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/26389/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010777452026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36246/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26389/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANJOT SINGH

    Adv. VIVEK K. THAKUR

  2. 2.MANJOT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.MANJOT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/26389/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Manjot Singh's petition for anticipatory bail in a serious NDPS and Arms Act case. The petitioner was nominated as a drug supplier based on co-accused Shivam Sodhi's disclosure statement implicating him in supplying 1 kg of heroin; the court found a prima facie case existed and determined custodial interrogation was necessary for investigating money trails and the petitioner's involvement in multiple similar cases. The court held that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, which were absent here, and that granting such protection would create investigative loopholes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26389/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/26389/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Manjot Singh's petition for anticipatory bail in a serious NDPS and Arms Act case. The petitioner was nominated as a drug supplier based on co-accused Shivam Sodhi's disclosure statement implicating him in supplying 1 kg of heroin; the court found a prima facie case existed and determined custodial interrogation was necessary for investigating money trails and the petitioner's involvement in multiple similar cases. The court held that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, which were absent here, and that granting such protection would create investigative loopholes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case