PRITAM SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/32796/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010986022026

Filing Number

CRM-M/46255/2026

Filing Date

02-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/32796/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-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

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRITAM SINGH

    Adv. RAJIV KUMAR SAINI

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-32796-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed Pritam Singh's second pre-arrest bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to FIR No. 125 (Sekhwan PS, Batala) involving charges under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(3), 118(2), and 109 of BNS. The petitioner, already on pre-arrest bail since 20.01.2026, had filed the second petition after Section 109 was added during investigation. The court held that since the petitioner had already joined the investigation and the interim anticipatory bail had been made absolute, he remained entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the additional charge. The petition was allowed, confirming his pre-arrest bail status with the same terms and conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/32796/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-32796-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed Pritam Singh's second pre-arrest bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to FIR No. 125 (Sekhwan PS, Batala) involving charges under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(3), 118(2), and 109 of BNS. The petitioner, already on pre-arrest bail since 20.01.2026, had filed the second petition after Section 109 was added during investigation. The court held that since the petitioner had already joined the investigation and the interim anticipatory bail had been made absolute, he remained entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the additional charge. The petition was allowed, confirming his pre-arrest bail status with the same terms and conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case