MOHIT SHUKLA vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/26506/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010788662026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36789/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26506/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHIT SHUKLA

    Adv. VARINDER KUMAR

  2. 2.MOHIT SHUKLA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.MOHIT SHUKLA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26506 of 2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Mohit Shukla in an NDPS Act case where he was implicated solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no recovery effected from his possession. The court found that such unsubstantiated disclosure statements hold limited evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for implication, particularly when the petitioner was not present at the spot and no tangible evidence linked him to the alleged offence. The court emphasized that after over two months of incarceration with the investigation still ongoing, continued detention was unjustified. Regular bail was granted subject to standard conditions including reporting requirements, passport deposit, and undertaking not to interfere with evidence or commit further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26506/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26506 of 2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Mohit Shukla in an NDPS Act case where he was implicated solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no recovery effected from his possession. The court found that such unsubstantiated disclosure statements hold limited evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for implication, particularly when the petitioner was not present at the spot and no tangible evidence linked him to the alleged offence. The court emphasized that after over two months of incarceration with the investigation still ongoing, continued detention was unjustified. Regular bail was granted subject to standard conditions including reporting requirements, passport deposit, and undertaking not to interfere with evidence or commit further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case