Bail petition disposed of by adopting the order passed the same day in a companion matter involving another accused; no independent reasoning is recorded in this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
214(ii)
CRM-M-6759-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.05.2026
MUKESH ALIAS MIKU
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
Present: Mr. Sauhard S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG,Haryana.
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
For orders, see order of even date passed in CRM-M-486-2026,
titled as ‘Nitin son of Subhash Versus State of Haryana’.
18.05.2026
renu
(H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RENU RAWAT 2026.05.20 17.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nitin son of Subhash Versus State of HaryanaReferred
CRM-M-486-2026, 'Nitin son of Subhash Versus State of Haryana'
Mukesh alias Miku
State of Haryana
H.S. Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
