RAMESH CHANDAR VERMA vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CRM-M/15756/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010456942026

Filing Number

CRM-M/19554/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/15756/2026

Registration Date

19-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMESH CHANDAR VERMA

    Adv. MANUJ NAGRATH

  2. 2.RAMESH CHANDAR VERMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.RAMESH CHANDAR VERMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/15756/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Ramesh Chander Verma's petition challenging an anticipatory bail order granted to two respondents in a fraud/forgery case (FIR No. 359). Justice Sanjay Vashisth upheld the bail, finding that since evidence is predominantly documentary in nature and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, the lower court correctly granted bail. The court held it lacks appellate jurisdiction to re-examine bail decisions already granted by lower courts and affirmed the decision based on equity principles and prima facie satisfaction of the accused's submissions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/15756/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/15756/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Ramesh Chander Verma's petition challenging an anticipatory bail order granted to two respondents in a fraud/forgery case (FIR No. 359). Justice Sanjay Vashisth upheld the bail, finding that since evidence is predominantly documentary in nature and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, the lower court correctly granted bail. The court held it lacks appellate jurisdiction to re-examine bail decisions already granted by lower courts and affirmed the decision based on equity principles and prima facie satisfaction of the accused's submissions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case