SATYAWAN @ SATYWAN AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/32505/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010979242026

Filing Number

CRM-M/45956/2026

Filing Date

30-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/32505/2026

Registration Date

30-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATYAWAN @ SATYWAN AND ANOTHER

    Adv. Zorawar Singh Chauhan

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

  3. 3.SUNIL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-32505-2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners Satyawan and Sunil in an assault case (FIR No. 221/2024) arising from an alleged armed attack on a complainant. The court found that the investigation was complete, the petitioners were cleared by police and placed in Column 12 (uninvolved persons), no custodial interrogation was required, and no evidence recovery was pending—factors outweighing the State's reliance on the offense's seriousness. The bail was granted with standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence, maintaining address disclosure, and not leaving India without trial court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/32505/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-32505-2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners Satyawan and Sunil in an assault case (FIR No. 221/2024) arising from an alleged armed attack on a complainant. The court found that the investigation was complete, the petitioners were cleared by police and placed in Column 12 (uninvolved persons), no custodial interrogation was required, and no evidence recovery was pending—factors outweighing the State's reliance on the offense's seriousness. The bail was granted with standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence, maintaining address disclosure, and not leaving India without trial court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case