SUMIT JANGRA vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/18235/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010559942026

Filing Number

CRM-M/24994/2026

Filing Date

02-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/18235/2026

Registration Date

02-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUMIT JANGRA

    Adv. AJIT SINGH

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sumit Jangra's petition for anticipatory bail in a financial fraud case involving the Radisson Hotel in Gurugram. The court found prima facie evidence that Jangra, working with co-accused Harleen Kaur, systematically defrauded hotel guests of several lakhs of rupees through cash collection, fake receipts, account manipulation, and impersonation of hotel officials. The court rejected arguments that he had resigned before the fraud occurred, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and that granting bail would impede the probe. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/18235/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Sumit Jangra's petition for anticipatory bail in a financial fraud case involving the Radisson Hotel in Gurugram. The court found prima facie evidence that Jangra, working with co-accused Harleen Kaur, systematically defrauded hotel guests of several lakhs of rupees through cash collection, fake receipts, account manipulation, and impersonation of hotel officials. The court rejected arguments that he had resigned before the fraud occurred, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and that granting bail would impede the probe. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case