UMESH KUMAR GARG vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/7904/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 07-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010228512026

Filing Number

CRM-M/8005/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/7904/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UMESH KUMAR GARG

    Adv. ANURAG CHOPRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Umesh Kumar Garg in a cyber fraud case involving Rs. 71.79 lakh, finding that the petitioner had been in custody for over three-and-a-half months with only a co-accused's disclosure statement as evidence against him—which lacks admissibility—and nothing recovered from his possession. The court emphasized that bail is the general rule, not the exception, and that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence violates the constitutional right to speedy trial, particularly given the low conviction rates in India and the likelihood of acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/7904/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Umesh Kumar Garg in a cyber fraud case involving Rs. 71.79 lakh, finding that the petitioner had been in custody for over three-and-a-half months with only a co-accused's disclosure statement as evidence against him—which lacks admissibility—and nothing recovered from his possession. The court emphasized that bail is the general rule, not the exception, and that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence violates the constitutional right to speedy trial, particularly given the low conviction rates in India and the likelihood of acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case