JARNAIL SINGH RANGI AND ANR vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS — CRM-M/33439/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010999442026

Filing Number

CRM-M/47088/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/33439/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JARNAIL SINGH RANGI AND ANR

    Adv. Arjun Shukla

  2. 2.JARNAIL SINGH RANGI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

  2. 2.JARNAIL SINGH RANGI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Summary: CRM-M/33439/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Jarnail Singh Rangi and another, who faced potential criminal proceedings under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 regarding the Rajdhani Enclave residential colony project. Justice Mandeep Pannu held that the petition sought blanket anticipatory bail without specifying particular offences, which violates established Supreme Court precedent prohibiting such broad bail orders that would interfere with police investigative powers. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments about consumer complaints being dismissed and bank guarantees being released, finding no merit in granting pre-arrest bail covering unspecified future incidents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/33439/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: CRM-M/33439/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Jarnail Singh Rangi and another, who faced potential criminal proceedings under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 regarding the Rajdhani Enclave residential colony project. Justice Mandeep Pannu held that the petition sought blanket anticipatory bail without specifying particular offences, which violates established Supreme Court precedent prohibiting such broad bail orders that would interfere with police investigative powers. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments about consumer complaints being dismissed and bank guarantees being released, finding no merit in granting pre-arrest bail covering unspecified future incidents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case