SATVINDER SINGH @ SATI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/50787/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011437162025

Filing Number

CRM-M/75266/2025

Filing Date

04-Sep-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/50787/2025

Registration Date

09-Sep-2025

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATVINDER SINGH @ SATI

    Adv. ASHISH PUNDIR

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/50787/2025 Court Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Satvinder Singh, who was arrested for possessing commercial quantities of narcotic drugs (Lomotil tablets and Tramadol capsules) under Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The court held that prolonged incarceration combined with trial delay outweighs NDPS Act Section 37 restrictions, particularly since no prosecution witnesses have been examined despite 40 being listed. The petitioner's clean antecedents and no evidence of flight risk further supported release on bail with standard conditions including appearance at hearings and surrender of travel documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

  4. 04-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/50787/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/50787/2025 Court Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Satvinder Singh, who was arrested for possessing commercial quantities of narcotic drugs (Lomotil tablets and Tramadol capsules) under Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The court held that prolonged incarceration combined with trial delay outweighs NDPS Act Section 37 restrictions, particularly since no prosecution witnesses have been examined despite 40 being listed. The petitioner's clean antecedents and no evidence of flight risk further supported release on bail with standard conditions including appearance at hearings and surrender of travel documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case