ROHIT BHARDWAJ vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/17248/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010524212026

Filing Number

CRM-M/23061/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/17248/2026

Registration Date

27-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROHIT BHARDWAJ

    Adv. DHARAMVIR SINGH

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 17248/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Rohit Bhardwaj, an Axis Bank employee accused of facilitating a cryptocurrency fraud scheme. The court found that despite three months of incarceration, investigation completion, and clean antecedents, there was insufficient evidence linking him to the conspiracy—only allegations of opening a fraudulent bank account without direct benefit from proceeds. Key Reasoning: The court applied Supreme Court principles emphasizing bail as the rule and detention as exception, rejecting the prosecution's argument that a money transfer to his father-in-law proved culpability. The judge stressed constitutional rights to speedy trial and found continued detention unjustifiable given the likely lengthy trial period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/17248/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 17248/2026 Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Rohit Bhardwaj, an Axis Bank employee accused of facilitating a cryptocurrency fraud scheme. The court found that despite three months of incarceration, investigation completion, and clean antecedents, there was insufficient evidence linking him to the conspiracy—only allegations of opening a fraudulent bank account without direct benefit from proceeds. Key Reasoning: The court applied Supreme Court principles emphasizing bail as the rule and detention as exception, rejecting the prosecution's argument that a money transfer to his father-in-law proved culpability. The judge stressed constitutional rights to speedy trial and found continued detention unjustifiable given the likely lengthy trial period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case