AAKASHDEEP SINGH ALIAS NIKKA SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/71359/2025

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 23-Dec-2025

CNR: PHHC012021652025

Filing Number

CRM-M/105427/2025

Filing Date

10-Dec-2025

Registration No

CRM-M/71359/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

Judge

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Coram

Ms. Justice Kirti Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.17 - REGULAR BAIL PUNJAB (AGNST WOMEN) ( 286 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AAKASHDEEP SINGH ALIAS NIKKA SINGH

    Adv. ARMAAN GAGNEJA

  2. 2.AAKASHDEEP SINGH @ NIKKA SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.AAKASHDEEP SINGH @ NIKKA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Kirti SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/71359/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Aakashdeep Singh (aged 20) on March 24, 2026, in a case involving charges under BNS sections 137(2), 96, 61(2), 64, 87, and POCSO Act sections 3-4 for allegedly abetting in the abduction of a 14-year-old girl. The court found that despite charges being framed on November 1, 2025, only 4 of 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the petitioner had served 8 months 22 days in custody with no criminal antecedents, and key witnesses (complainant and victim) were not appearing for trial—warranting bail under the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/71359/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/71359/2025 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to Aakashdeep Singh (aged 20) on March 24, 2026, in a case involving charges under BNS sections 137(2), 96, 61(2), 64, 87, and POCSO Act sections 3-4 for allegedly abetting in the abduction of a 14-year-old girl. The court found that despite charges being framed on November 1, 2025, only 4 of 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the petitioner had served 8 months 22 days in custody with no criminal antecedents, and key witnesses (complainant and victim) were not appearing for trial—warranting bail under the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case