SATPAL SINGH @ PALA FOJI vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/61777/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Nov-2025

CNR: PHHC011764732025

Filing Number

CRM-M/92350/2025

Filing Date

31-Oct-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/61777/2025

Registration Date

01-Nov-2025

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

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATPAL SINGH @ PALA FOJI

    Adv. LAGHUINDER SINGH SEKHON

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-61777/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to 65-year-old Satpal Singh, accused of firing three shots (one hitting the complainant's thigh) and abetting stone injuries during a land dispute in Patiala. The court emphasized that the case involves conflicting versions between parties with a cross-case also registered against the complainant, noted the petitioner's nine months' custody and clean antecedents, and found continued detention would not advance justice given the trial's nascent stage with 22 witnesses remaining. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/61777/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-61777/2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to 65-year-old Satpal Singh, accused of firing three shots (one hitting the complainant's thigh) and abetting stone injuries during a land dispute in Patiala. The court emphasized that the case involves conflicting versions between parties with a cross-case also registered against the complainant, noted the petitioner's nine months' custody and clean antecedents, and found continued detention would not advance justice given the trial's nascent stage with 22 witnesses remaining. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case