LOVEPREET SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/9154/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 16-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010259932026

Filing Number

CRM-M/9632/2026

Filing Date

12-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/9154/2026

Registration Date

13-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Coram

Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.1 - REGULAR BAIL (PUNJAB) ( 220 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LOVEPREET SINGH

    Adv. RISHU MAHAJAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Ms. Justice Rupinderjit ChahalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/9154/2026 - Lovepreet Singh v. State of Punjab The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh, accused of defrauding a complainant of ₹37 lakhs under the pretext of sending his sons abroad (charges under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014). The court held that after 15+ months in custody, with investigation complete, charges framed, and only 10 of 19 prosecution witnesses examined, continued detention without prospect of trial conclusion violated Article 21 rights. The court rejected the State's argument regarding involvement in similar cases, ruling bail cannot be denied solely on criminal antecedents; each case must be evaluated on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/9154/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/9154/2026 - Lovepreet Singh v. State of Punjab The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh, accused of defrauding a complainant of ₹37 lakhs under the pretext of sending his sons abroad (charges under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014). The court held that after 15+ months in custody, with investigation complete, charges framed, and only 10 of 19 prosecution witnesses examined, continued detention without prospect of trial conclusion violated Article 21 rights. The court rejected the State's argument regarding involvement in similar cases, ruling bail cannot be denied solely on criminal antecedents; each case must be evaluated on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case