SUCHA SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/33461/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010976942026

Filing Number

CRM-M/45878/2026

Filing Date

29-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/33461/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Coram

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUCHA SINGH

    Adv. CHANDER SHEKHAR SINGHAL

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Sandeep MoudgilView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/33461/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sucha Singh's petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Prabhjot Kaur in a theft case involving alleged removal of 28-30 tolas of gold and unauthorized transfer of ₹7,36,900 from the complainant's accounts. The court held that cancellation of already-granted bail requires "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" or supervening events; mere allegations of serious crimes are insufficient. Finding no evidence that the accused misused bail, interfered with investigation, tampered with witnesses, or posed flight risk, the court upheld the bail, noting that disputed transactions can be verified through documentary and electronic evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/33461/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/33461/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sucha Singh's petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Prabhjot Kaur in a theft case involving alleged removal of 28-30 tolas of gold and unauthorized transfer of ₹7,36,900 from the complainant's accounts. The court held that cancellation of already-granted bail requires "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" or supervening events; mere allegations of serious crimes are insufficient. Finding no evidence that the accused misused bail, interfered with investigation, tampered with witnesses, or posed flight risk, the court upheld the bail, noting that disputed transactions can be verified through documentary and electronic evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case