SANTOSH RANI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/33483/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011000592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/47165/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/33483/2026

Registration Date

09-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

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSH RANI

    Adv. KARTIK

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 33483/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana GRANTED anticipatory bail to petitioner Santosh Rani. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner's inability to provide satisfactory answers to investigating officers' questions does not constitute non-cooperation with investigation. The court distinguished between cooperation (joining investigation and making oneself available) and providing self-incriminatory statements. Since the petitioner had already joined investigation pursuant to interim protection and questions about document attestation are matters the investigating agency should establish independently, custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage. Condition: Bail granted subject to furnishing bail bonds, surety bonds, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/33483/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 33483/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana GRANTED anticipatory bail to petitioner Santosh Rani. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner's inability to provide satisfactory answers to investigating officers' questions does not constitute non-cooperation with investigation. The court distinguished between cooperation (joining investigation and making oneself available) and providing self-incriminatory statements. Since the petitioner had already joined investigation pursuant to interim protection and questions about document attestation are matters the investigating agency should establish independently, custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage. Condition: Bail granted subject to furnishing bail bonds, surety bonds, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case