RAHUL KUMAR SAIN vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/7507/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 08-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010220372026

Filing Number

CRM-M/7653/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/7507/2026

Registration Date

06-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

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.RAHUL KUMAR SAIN

    Adv. SANDEEP KOTLA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M-7507-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Rahul Kumar Sain, arrested in a financial fraud case involving Rs. 24 lakh transferred to fraudsters through a fake trading app scheme. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj allowed the bail petition primarily on the grounds of parity with co-accused Sahil Kumar Prajapat, who had already been granted bail by the same court, noting that Sain had suffered 11 months 9 days of incarceration and the trial would take considerable time. The court clarified that this decision expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations, which would be assessed only after trial conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/7507/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M-7507-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Rahul Kumar Sain, arrested in a financial fraud case involving Rs. 24 lakh transferred to fraudsters through a fake trading app scheme. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj allowed the bail petition primarily on the grounds of parity with co-accused Sahil Kumar Prajapat, who had already been granted bail by the same court, noting that Sain had suffered 11 months 9 days of incarceration and the trial would take considerable time. The court clarified that this decision expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations, which would be assessed only after trial conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case