RAGHVINDER vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/12433/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 07-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010372612026

Filing Number

CRM-M/15194/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/12433/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

Coram

Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39.13 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL (AGNST WOMEN) ( 285 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAGHVINDER

    Adv. KARAN PATHAK

  2. 2.RAGHVINDER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.RAGHVINDER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Shalini Singh NagpalView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M/12433/2026: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted absolute anticipatory bail to Raghvinder in a cybercrime case (FIR involving obscene videos sent via Instagram) under Sections 78 BNS 2023 and 67, 67-A IT Act 2000. The petitioner claimed false implication stemming from a matrimonial dispute, argued he had no connection to the mobile number/Instagram link involved, and had already been acquitted in a previous Section 376 IPC case filed by the same woman. The State conceded that the petitioner had cooperated with investigation and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, whereupon the Court made the interim anticipatory bail absolute, subject to statutory conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/12433/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M/12433/2026: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted absolute anticipatory bail to Raghvinder in a cybercrime case (FIR involving obscene videos sent via Instagram) under Sections 78 BNS 2023 and 67, 67-A IT Act 2000. The petitioner claimed false implication stemming from a matrimonial dispute, argued he had no connection to the mobile number/Instagram link involved, and had already been acquitted in a previous Section 376 IPC case filed by the same woman. The State conceded that the petitioner had cooperated with investigation and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, whereupon the Court made the interim anticipatory bail absolute, subject to statutory conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case