MANPREET @ MANNI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/32996/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010975592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/45767/2026

Filing Date

29-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/32996/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Coram

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANPREET @ MANNI

    Adv. ANMOL SHARMA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Sandeep MoudgilView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: CRM-M/32996/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Manpreet @ Manni in a case involving charges under IPC sections 323, 325, 307, 308, 427, 506/34. The court found that the petitioner had already served 2 years and 25 days in custody, the matter was compromised between parties (evidenced by compromise deed dated 26.02.2026), and a separate quashing petition was pending. Rejecting the State's objection regarding the petitioner's involvement in other cases, the court held that bail is the general rule and detention the exception; criminal antecedents alone cannot deny bail when evidence in the current case must be evaluated independently, and the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be denied indefinitely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/32996/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: CRM-M/32996/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Manpreet @ Manni in a case involving charges under IPC sections 323, 325, 307, 308, 427, 506/34. The court found that the petitioner had already served 2 years and 25 days in custody, the matter was compromised between parties (evidenced by compromise deed dated 26.02.2026), and a separate quashing petition was pending. Rejecting the State's objection regarding the petitioner's involvement in other cases, the court held that bail is the general rule and detention the exception; criminal antecedents alone cannot deny bail when evidence in the current case must be evaluated independently, and the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be denied indefinitely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case