SHABBIR vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/26555/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010782832026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36499/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26555/2026

Registration Date

08-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

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHABBIR

    Adv. VIDUSHI KUMAR

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M/26555/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to petitioner Shabbir, who was arrested on October 28, 2024, and charged under BNS sections relating to harassment, assault, and unlawful assembly allegedly resulting in the death of Malkeet Singh. The court found that Shabbir had suffered extended incarceration for over 18 months, all key private witnesses had been examined, and no tangible evidence suggested risk of absconding or witness tampering. The decision was based on the constitutional right to speedy trial and the presumption of innocence, with bail conditional upon specific undertakings including non-tampering with evidence and court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26555/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M/26555/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to petitioner Shabbir, who was arrested on October 28, 2024, and charged under BNS sections relating to harassment, assault, and unlawful assembly allegedly resulting in the death of Malkeet Singh. The court found that Shabbir had suffered extended incarceration for over 18 months, all key private witnesses had been examined, and no tangible evidence suggested risk of absconding or witness tampering. The decision was based on the constitutional right to speedy trial and the presumption of innocence, with bail conditional upon specific undertakings including non-tampering with evidence and court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case