YOGESH RAJBHAR vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/26394/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010785312026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36640/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26394/2026

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. 1.YOGESH RAJBHAR

    Adv. Anureet Singh Sidhu

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M/26394/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Yogesh Rajbhar, who had been incarcerated for over 13 months on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon. The court found that investigation was complete, co-accused had already received bail, trial progress was minimal (only two of eighteen witnesses examined), and there was no evidence of flight risk or witness tampering. The court emphasized fundamental principles that bail is the general rule and detention is an exception, and noted that prolonged undertrial custody without speedy trial violates Article 21 rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26394/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M/26394/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Yogesh Rajbhar, who had been incarcerated for over 13 months on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon. The court found that investigation was complete, co-accused had already received bail, trial progress was minimal (only two of eighteen witnesses examined), and there was no evidence of flight risk or witness tampering. The court emphasized fundamental principles that bail is the general rule and detention is an exception, and noted that prolonged undertrial custody without speedy trial violates Article 21 rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case