SUMAN vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/65681/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 28-Nov-2025

CNR: PHHC011809612025

Filing Number

CRM-M/94754/2025

Filing Date

07-Nov-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/65681/2025

Registration Date

19-Nov-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

Coram

Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal

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.SUMAN

    Adv. SAHIL CHOUDHARY

  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 H.S. GrewalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Suman, who was accused of abetting a murder case (FIR No.139 under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 216 IPC and Arms Act provisions). The court noted that Suman had been in continuous custody since May 2024 (approximately 1 year 10 months), key witnesses and the complainant had resiled from their statements, and the trial was progressing slowly with only 8 of 46 witnesses examined, making prolonged incarceration unjustified. The court applied the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception" and ordered her release on furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds, expressly reserving opinion on case merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/65681/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Suman, who was accused of abetting a murder case (FIR No.139 under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 216 IPC and Arms Act provisions). The court noted that Suman had been in continuous custody since May 2024 (approximately 1 year 10 months), key witnesses and the complainant had resiled from their statements, and the trial was progressing slowly with only 8 of 46 witnesses examined, making prolonged incarceration unjustified. The court applied the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception" and ordered her release on furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds, expressly reserving opinion on case merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case