RITIK SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/61298/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 20-Jan-2026

CNR: PHHC011755212025

Filing Number

CRM-M/91880/2025

Filing Date

30-Oct-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/61298/2025

Registration Date

30-Oct-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh 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.RITIK SINGH

    Adv. DHARAMVIR SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/61298/2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Ritik Singh, who was arrested in November 2022 for allegedly striking a laborer with a sickle during a scuffle, resulting in death. The court found that Singh had already undergone over three years of incarceration, had no prior criminal record, and that the accused has a fundamental constitutional right to speedy trial—especially since trial completion will take considerable time with only 15 of 27 prosecution witnesses examined. The court emphasized that deprivation of liberty without ensuring speedy trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution, ordering Singh's release on furnishing appropriate bail/surety bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/61298/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/61298/2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Ritik Singh, who was arrested in November 2022 for allegedly striking a laborer with a sickle during a scuffle, resulting in death. The court found that Singh had already undergone over three years of incarceration, had no prior criminal record, and that the accused has a fundamental constitutional right to speedy trial—especially since trial completion will take considerable time with only 15 of 27 prosecution witnesses examined. The court emphasized that deprivation of liberty without ensuring speedy trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution, ordering Singh's release on furnishing appropriate bail/surety bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case