VINEET KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/10497/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010281382026

Filing Number

CRM-M/10767/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/10497/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Judge

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Coram

Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINEET KUMAR

    Adv. PARVESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Manisha BatraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/10497/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Vineet Kumar's anticipatory bail petition on May 13, 2026. Justice Manisha Batra found a prima facie case of cheating (IPC Section 420) where Kumar allegedly deceived a Sri Lankan woman by falsely claiming he was divorcing his wife, entrapping her into marriage while continuing his relationship with his ex-wife, and extracting substantial sums (Rs. 60 lakhs acknowledged) through dishonored cheques and false promises of property transfer. Key Reasoning: The Court determined that custodial interrogation was essential to investigate the financial transactions and the role of co-accused parties, and that no exceptional circumstances warranted granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/10497/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/10497/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Vineet Kumar's anticipatory bail petition on May 13, 2026. Justice Manisha Batra found a prima facie case of cheating (IPC Section 420) where Kumar allegedly deceived a Sri Lankan woman by falsely claiming he was divorcing his wife, entrapping her into marriage while continuing his relationship with his ex-wife, and extracting substantial sums (Rs. 60 lakhs acknowledged) through dishonored cheques and false promises of property transfer. Key Reasoning: The Court determined that custodial interrogation was essential to investigate the financial transactions and the role of co-accused parties, and that no exceptional circumstances warranted granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case