SUNDRI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/26833/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010800422026

Filing Number

CRM-M/37379/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26833/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNDRI

    Adv. SANDEEP SHARMA

  2. 2.SUNDRI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.SUNDRI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26833/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sundri's anticipatory bail petition in a narcotic drugs case. Police recovered 55.67 kg of ganja from two women at a railway station; during investigation, Sundri was implicated as the purchaser based on co-accused disclosure statements, though no direct recovery was made from her. The court found prima facie complicity established and held that custodial interrogation was essential at the investigation's initial stage, making anticipatory bail inappropriate despite the petitioner's arguments challenging the admissibility of co-accused statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26833/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 26833/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sundri's anticipatory bail petition in a narcotic drugs case. Police recovered 55.67 kg of ganja from two women at a railway station; during investigation, Sundri was implicated as the purchaser based on co-accused disclosure statements, though no direct recovery was made from her. The court found prima facie complicity established and held that custodial interrogation was essential at the investigation's initial stage, making anticipatory bail inappropriate despite the petitioner's arguments challenging the admissibility of co-accused statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case