SURAJ KUMAR @ KANCHA vs STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH — CRWP/5659/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010820782026

Filing Number

CRWP/38456/2026

Filing Date

12-May-2026

Registration No

CRWP/5659/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Coram

Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

42.1 - CRIMINAL WRIT (HABEAS CORPUS) ( 311 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURAJ KUMAR @ KANCHA

    Adv. SANDEEP SHARMA

  2. 2.SURAJ KUMAR ALIAS KANCHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

  2. 2.SURAJ KUMAR ALIAS KANCHA

  3. 3.SUPDT. / REGISTRAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Subhas MehlaView PDF

    Case Summary: CRWP/5659/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Suraj Kumar's habeas corpus petition on grounds of maintainability, ruling that challenges to judicial remand orders cannot be pursued through habeas corpus but must follow statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Although the petitioner argued arrest grounds were not communicated in writing as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the court held that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy applicable only to manifestly illegal detention, not to custody pursuant to valid magistrate remand orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/5659/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRWP/5659/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Suraj Kumar's habeas corpus petition on grounds of maintainability, ruling that challenges to judicial remand orders cannot be pursued through habeas corpus but must follow statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Although the petitioner argued arrest grounds were not communicated in writing as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the court held that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy applicable only to manifestly illegal detention, not to custody pursuant to valid magistrate remand orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case