GURJANT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/33453/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011000572026

Filing Number

CRM-M/47194/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/33453/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURJANT SINGH

    Adv. SUKHMEET SINGH

  2. 2.GURJANT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.GURJANT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M/33453/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to petitioner Gurjant Singh in a murder case (FIR No. 138, Sections 103 and 61(2) BNS 2023) where the actual perpetrator, Jaskaran Singh, killed Dharampreet Singh over an illicit relationship and subsequently consumed poison. The court found that the petitioner's only alleged involvement was issuing a warning 13 months prior to the murder with no overt act in the actual commission, that prosecution witnesses failed to support the prosecution case during testimony, and that the petitioner had already undergone significant custody, warranting his release on bail with conditions prohibiting witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/33453/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M/33453/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to petitioner Gurjant Singh in a murder case (FIR No. 138, Sections 103 and 61(2) BNS 2023) where the actual perpetrator, Jaskaran Singh, killed Dharampreet Singh over an illicit relationship and subsequently consumed poison. The court found that the petitioner's only alleged involvement was issuing a warning 13 months prior to the murder with no overt act in the actual commission, that prosecution witnesses failed to support the prosecution case during testimony, and that the petitioner had already undergone significant custody, warranting his release on bail with conditions prohibiting witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case