UMAR MOHD. ALIAS UMMAR MOHD vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/26694/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010792982026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36977/2026

Filing Date

08-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26694/2026

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.UMAR MOHD. ALIAS UMMAR MOHD

    Adv. ANAS AHMED

  2. 2.UMAR MOHD.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.UMAR MOHD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26694/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Umar Mohd., who had been in custody for over 8 months since August 30, 2025, in connection with charges including kidnapping, attempted murder, and illegal weapons possession (FIR No. 252). Justice Sumeet Goel found that continued detention was unwarranted given the lengthy incarceration period, lack of evidence of flight risk or witness tampering, and that only 5 of 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Key Conditions: The petitioner must furnish bail bonds, refrain from evidence tampering, maintain regular court attendance, deposit his passport, provide his cell phone number to authorities, and submit monthly affidavits confirming no further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26694/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26694/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Umar Mohd., who had been in custody for over 8 months since August 30, 2025, in connection with charges including kidnapping, attempted murder, and illegal weapons possession (FIR No. 252). Justice Sumeet Goel found that continued detention was unwarranted given the lengthy incarceration period, lack of evidence of flight risk or witness tampering, and that only 5 of 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Key Conditions: The petitioner must furnish bail bonds, refrain from evidence tampering, maintain regular court attendance, deposit his passport, provide his cell phone number to authorities, and submit monthly affidavits confirming no 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