TEHAL SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/27517/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010809092026

Filing Number

CRM-M/37880/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/27517/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TEHAL SINGH

    Adv. AMANDEEP SINGH PUNIA

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/27517/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Tehal Singh's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving alleged aggravated assault charges under BNS Sections 110, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5). The petitioner, along with others, allegedly attacked two victims with hammers and sticks during a water channel repair dispute, causing 12 combined injuries including a skull fracture with intracranial complications. The court rejected the petitioner's private defense claim, finding it unconvincing because no formal complaint or supporting medical evidence of the petitioner's alleged injuries existed on record, and dismissed the petition considering the gravity of allegations and victim injuries. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/27517/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/27517/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Tehal Singh's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving alleged aggravated assault charges under BNS Sections 110, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5). The petitioner, along with others, allegedly attacked two victims with hammers and sticks during a water channel repair dispute, causing 12 combined injuries including a skull fracture with intracranial complications. The court rejected the petitioner's private defense claim, finding it unconvincing because no formal complaint or supporting medical evidence of the petitioner's alleged injuries existed on record, and dismissed the petition considering the gravity of allegations and victim injuries. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case