SANJEEV KUMAR @ TEETU vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/27067/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010802962026

Filing Number

CRM-M/37527/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/27067/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJEEV KUMAR @ TEETU

    Adv. SAMAY SANDHAWALIA

  2. 2.SANJEEV KUMAR @ TEETU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.SANJEEV KUMAR @ TEETU

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 27067/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Sanjeev Kumar @ Teetu, arrested for possessing 253 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) under NDPS Act sections 21(C), 29 & 27-A. The court held that despite Section 37 NDPS Act's restrictive provisions, the petitioner's 14-month incarceration, completed investigation, slow trial pace (zero witnesses examined), and fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 warranted bail. The court applied Supreme Court precedents establishing that prolonged detention violates constitutional rights and can override statutory bail restrictions when trial completion is remote. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/27067/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 27067/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Sanjeev Kumar @ Teetu, arrested for possessing 253 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) under NDPS Act sections 21(C), 29 & 27-A. The court held that despite Section 37 NDPS Act's restrictive provisions, the petitioner's 14-month incarceration, completed investigation, slow trial pace (zero witnesses examined), and fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 warranted bail. The court applied Supreme Court precedents establishing that prolonged detention violates constitutional rights and can override statutory bail restrictions when trial completion is remote. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case