HARPREET SINGH @ HARRY vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/26301/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010787372026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36731/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26301/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Coram

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.17 - REGULAR BAIL PUNJAB (AGNST WOMEN) ( 286 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARPREET SINGH @ HARRY

    Adv. PRABHJOT KAUR

  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

    Ms. Justice Kirti SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/26301/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Harpreet Singh (age 24) in a case involving alleged abduction of a minor under Sections 137(2) and 96 of BNS. The court found that Singh had already spent 6 months and 11 days in custody, charges were only framed on 17.04.2026 with all 15 prosecution witnesses still to be examined, and no evidence suggested he posed a flight risk or would tamper with witnesses. The court held that continued detention would violate Article 21 constitutional protections and contravene the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," emphasizing that pre-trial incarceration cannot be punitive. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and regular court appearance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26301/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/26301/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Harpreet Singh (age 24) in a case involving alleged abduction of a minor under Sections 137(2) and 96 of BNS. The court found that Singh had already spent 6 months and 11 days in custody, charges were only framed on 17.04.2026 with all 15 prosecution witnesses still to be examined, and no evidence suggested he posed a flight risk or would tamper with witnesses. The court held that continued detention would violate Article 21 constitutional protections and contravene the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," emphasizing that pre-trial incarceration cannot be punitive. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and regular court appearance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case