AMIT KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/4776/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 09-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010125882026

Filing Number

CRM-M/2987/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/4776/2026

Registration Date

27-Jan-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMIT KUMAR

    Adv. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/4776/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Amit Kumar in a cybercrime case involving alleged investment fraud. The court found that Kumar had already spent 6 months and 12 days in custody, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and there was no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence. Key Reasoning: Although the State opposed bail citing serious allegations, the court determined further detention was unnecessary given the settlement between parties and Kumar's clean record with no involvement in other cases. The court imposed seven bail conditions, including passport deposit, mobile number disclosure to police, and restrictions on evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/4776/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/4776/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Amit Kumar in a cybercrime case involving alleged investment fraud. The court found that Kumar had already spent 6 months and 12 days in custody, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and there was no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence. Key Reasoning: Although the State opposed bail citing serious allegations, the court determined further detention was unnecessary given the settlement between parties and Kumar's clean record with no involvement in other cases. The court imposed seven bail conditions, including passport deposit, mobile number disclosure to police, and restrictions on evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case