GOVINDA SINGH @ GOBINDA SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/33704/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 17th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011009462026

Filing Number

CRM-M/47760/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/33704/2026

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

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

17-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVINDA SINGH @ GOBINDA SINGH

    Adv. Manu Loona

  2. 2.GOVINDA SINGH @ GOBINDA SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.GOVINDA SINGH @ GOBINDA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/33704/2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Govinda Singh in an NDPS case (FIR No. 142 dated 11.05.2026) involving charges under Sections 15, 18, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court found that the petitioner was nominated solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no direct recovery of contraband from him—only ₹40,000 was recovered. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that arguable issues exist regarding the petitioner's participation in the offense, warranting bail with conditions against witness intimidation and threat. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/33704/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/33704/2026 The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Govinda Singh in an NDPS case (FIR No. 142 dated 11.05.2026) involving charges under Sections 15, 18, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court found that the petitioner was nominated solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no direct recovery of contraband from him—only ₹40,000 was recovered. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that arguable issues exist regarding the petitioner's participation in the offense, warranting bail with conditions against witness intimidation and threat. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case