GURSEWAK SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/58687/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 04-Dec-2025

CNR: PHHC011666572025

Filing Number

CRM-M/87384/2025

Filing Date

13-Oct-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/58687/2025

Registration Date

15-Oct-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURSEWAK SINGH

    Adv. PRIYANKA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Gursewak Singh, who was arrested for allegedly hitting a police officer (ASI Surjit Singh) with a car at a checkpoint on 10.01.2024, causing injuries that led to the officer's death on 11.02.2024. The charges were upgraded from culpable homicide to murder (Section 302 IPC). The court allowed bail primarily because the petitioner had already spent over 2 years in custody with no criminal antecedents, only one of 26 prosecution witnesses examined, and the trial was likely to take considerable time—emphasizing that speedy trial is a constitutional right and prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/58687/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Gursewak Singh, who was arrested for allegedly hitting a police officer (ASI Surjit Singh) with a car at a checkpoint on 10.01.2024, causing injuries that led to the officer's death on 11.02.2024. The charges were upgraded from culpable homicide to murder (Section 302 IPC). The court allowed bail primarily because the petitioner had already spent over 2 years in custody with no criminal antecedents, only one of 26 prosecution witnesses examined, and the trial was likely to take considerable time—emphasizing that speedy trial is a constitutional right and prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case