Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/44933/2026 of SUNITA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 18 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 CRM-M-44933-2026 Date of Decision : August 18, 2026 Date of Uploading: August 19, 2026 SUNITA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present : Mr. Lakshay Goel, Legal Aid Counsel for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
! "!#$%&' ( ) *+,' * ''+ -!'&
! " #$% &$'()#*$( + (, & " -$ **$ .$()) + /$0
* ''+ -!'& )( .!/ 0 &$ 0 ,( + 1 23,&) 3 % ** $ , *+($ 0$(& ) 1$
45 $ 3446) * + 1 478978:4826 1) 4526 ;,, 1 8 5 1) 4526 $ ($ < 3 $ 3446) * $ &&&$ $) 1- $ &
=+ $ 1< ' , 43 * $- , $( *.& )87$ +*- ' 3 + *&1$+ ,& , * $ , *+($ 0$() & ($ 1+ (, & &$ +0- &$& $ $ ' .& 17$11+ ) $-(') "$ / *&) >$0 *& $ $ $( *&).&&$<0 $,, &1 1 , *+($ 0$(< $ 5:) 96: $ 446: 1<(' &+ ) *+($ 0$( $' , AJAY KUMAR
Chandigarh
#$ $1+ (&$ &* $ , *+($ 0$(0' $ * &$ & $ + $((*$ $*$ & $ & +*& 0* $ *+($ 0$($ $( &,$1+-,& 0 *$ & 1$ $*$ & 6 &$<&$ 1+ (, & $ $ &$<* & +*&& $<$($0( 1 ,&1$ : As per custody certificate dated 17.8.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of nine months and fourteen days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in another FIR under the NDPS Act. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. :4 > * <.& ',&,$1+$(-$ ?,&1$ &$ @ 1$(('&,$1+-,$(1 $0$ &$< *0 1< 0 * AJAY KUMAR
Chandigarh
43 * $- , $( *.& 1$ & $-+ , )87) 17$11+ $-(')"$ / *&)>$0 *&$ $ $( *&&$< *0 $,, &1 1 , *+($ 0$(0'& + @& + , * 1$+ $11 $ ,, $- & 9 <.,$0<)& 1 0 ($ *+($ 0$(), =+ $ '& 1$ ) & ,+ & * 0$(8 + ' 0 & $ ,$1 , & 1 1 "8+' "$* $ .< ) $ 1 &$ -$' 0 - 0'&1 1 "8+'"$* $)& &$(( -$ 0+ 0'&,((. *1 ! ;A & &$(( - 7+ &(0 '* $ ;A & &$(( $- .& $ ' < 1) $( 1+- $ ') + *& $( ;A & &$(( $0 &- (, $ ' $0, & $( ;<A & &$(( 1--$ ',, 1.&( 0$( ;<A & &$(( & $ ),$ ').&& $( + ;<A & &$(( *< & 1(( & +-0 & < *$ * ,,1 8 , 1 1 (1 $ $ &$(( 1&$ * & 1((7 & +-0 .&+ - ,& $(+ 8(($=$"$* $ ;<A & &$(( $ '-$ ' ($'& $( ;<A & &$(( +0-) &, . % * $',< ' - &)$ $,, $<)0, &1 1 $(+ )& ,,1 &$ & &$ 0 <(< 1-- , $ ' ,, 1$, 0 * ($ 0$( 1$ & ,+ 0 <(< $ ',, 1$, & 0 * ($ * 0$( &
) & 0$ , & $,, $< & . )&$ -$ $ -<), &.&), AJAY KUMAR
Chandigarh
1$ 1(($ , & 0$( .&1& ($) 0+ , 1+ ) &$(( 0 $1 $ + - & , 2 1$ ,0 $1&,$ ',&$, $ 1 $ & .&1& -$' 0 - 0' 1 1 "8+' "$* $ $ 1 & $0< + &. * $ ' & +,,1 1$+ ) & $81- ($ $ &$((0$(0 '-<, 1$ 1(($ ,0$(,& 5 $11 *(' 4 & * $ & $0< &$((01 + $ $ ? , &- ,&1$ .* ''+ -!'&0 +*+ 42): )
-' B&& $% *8 $ ! 8 B&& $0(! 8
AJAY KUMAR
Chandigarh