ARUN GARG vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/32815/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010950222025

Filing Number

CRM-M/49676/2025

Filing Date

12-Jun-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/32815/2025

Registration Date

17-Jun-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARUN GARG

    Adv. MANISH SONI

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M-32815/2025 (Arun Garg v. State of Haryana) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed bail petitions for seven of eight accused in a murder case arising from a property dispute. The case involved an alleged conspiracy to kill Harbilas (deceased) and injure Puneet Dang over a failed land sale agreement where ₹1.75 crores was given in escrow but never returned. The court found arguable issues regarding most petitioners' involvement in the conspiracy, insufficient evidence of their participation, clean antecedents, and prolonged custody, warranting bail. Only one petitioner (Garav) involved in weapon delivery was denied bail due to active participation and criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/32815/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M-32815/2025 (Arun Garg v. State of Haryana) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed bail petitions for seven of eight accused in a murder case arising from a property dispute. The case involved an alleged conspiracy to kill Harbilas (deceased) and injure Puneet Dang over a failed land sale agreement where ₹1.75 crores was given in escrow but never returned. The court found arguable issues regarding most petitioners' involvement in the conspiracy, insufficient evidence of their participation, clean antecedents, and prolonged custody, warranting bail. Only one petitioner (Garav) involved in weapon delivery was denied bail due to active participation and criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case