SURENDER ALIAS SURENDER SINGH ALIAS SINDER vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/26554/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010785262026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36588/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26554/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Coram

Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary

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.SURENDER ALIAS SURENDER SINGH ALIAS SINDER

    Adv. PRATHAM SETHI

  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 Aman ChaudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/26554/2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Surender in an NDPS drug case (FIR No. 371). The petitioner, arrested January 2024 and previously on bail, absconded on 22 April 2026 due to his father's medical emergency and subsequently surrendered. The court found that having already served 5+ months in custody, being on bail in another case, with six of eight co-accused on bail, and charges still not framed despite 35 prosecution witnesses, further incarceration violated Article 21 rights and was unjustified given the trial's likely lengthy duration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26554/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/26554/2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Surender in an NDPS drug case (FIR No. 371). The petitioner, arrested January 2024 and previously on bail, absconded on 22 April 2026 due to his father's medical emergency and subsequently surrendered. The court found that having already served 5+ months in custody, being on bail in another case, with six of eight co-accused on bail, and charges still not framed despite 35 prosecution witnesses, further incarceration violated Article 21 rights and was unjustified given the trial's likely lengthy 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