SANDEEP PURI ALIAS GAUSWAMI SANDIP PURI vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/52235/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011438902025

Filing Number

CRM-M/75353/2025

Filing Date

04-Sep-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/52235/2025

Registration Date

15-Sep-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP PURI ALIAS GAUSWAMI SANDIP PURI

    Adv. VIKRAM RATHORE

  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

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-52235/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Sandeep Puri, a pharmacist accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for allegedly supplying 4000 Tramadol tablets. The court found that co-accused Peter Chand and Kuldeep Singh—from whom drugs were recovered—had already been granted bail, the petitioner's name surfaced only through their disclosure statements, no recovery was made from the petitioner himself, and trial had stalled despite 24 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner was ordered released on furnishing bail/surety bond with conditions against witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/52235/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-52235/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to petitioner Sandeep Puri, a pharmacist accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for allegedly supplying 4000 Tramadol tablets. The court found that co-accused Peter Chand and Kuldeep Singh—from whom drugs were recovered—had already been granted bail, the petitioner's name surfaced only through their disclosure statements, no recovery was made from the petitioner himself, and trial had stalled despite 24 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner was ordered released on furnishing bail/surety bond with conditions against 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