VIJAY @ VISHU vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. — CRM-M/33678/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 17th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011009222026

Filing Number

CRM-M/47783/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/33678/2026

Registration Date

10-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.18 - REGULAR BAIL HARYANA (AGNST WOMEN) ( 287 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

17-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIJAY @ VISHU

    Adv. YASHVEER KHARB

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/33678/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to petitioner Vijay @ Vishu in a sexual assault case registered under BNS 2023 and POCSO Act 2012. The court found that the prosecutrix's initial statement and formal Section 183 statement named only "Deepak, son of Rishi Pal" as the perpetrator; the petitioner was named only in a supplementary statement dated 05.12.2025. Critically, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution's case during trial, resiling from her supplementary statement. The court ordered bail on furnishing surety bonds, with conditions prohibiting threats or witness influence, while reserving the trial court's right to decide on case merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/33678/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/33678/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to petitioner Vijay @ Vishu in a sexual assault case registered under BNS 2023 and POCSO Act 2012. The court found that the prosecutrix's initial statement and formal Section 183 statement named only "Deepak, son of Rishi Pal" as the perpetrator; the petitioner was named only in a supplementary statement dated 05.12.2025. Critically, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution's case during trial, resiling from her supplementary statement. The court ordered bail on furnishing surety bonds, with conditions prohibiting threats or witness influence, while reserving the trial court's right to decide on case merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case