GAURAV GOEL vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/18652/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010569222026

Filing Number

CRM-M/25337/2026

Filing Date

04-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/18652/2026

Registration Date

04-Apr-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

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GAURAV GOEL

    Adv. ISHA GOYAL

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Summary of CRM-M-18652-2026: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to Gaurav Goel, accused of orchestrating a ₹55.55 crore financial fraud involving forged documents and fake goods transactions. The court found that while serious economic offences require stringent bail conditions, bail was warranted because: (1) investigation was complete and chargesheet filed; (2) Goel had already served ~4 months custody; (3) all evidence is documentary with no tampering risk; (4) over 50% of losses already recovered; and (5) the underlying dispute essentially concerns money recovery, appropriate for civil remedies rather than criminal detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/18652/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRM-M-18652-2026: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted bail to Gaurav Goel, accused of orchestrating a ₹55.55 crore financial fraud involving forged documents and fake goods transactions. The court found that while serious economic offences require stringent bail conditions, bail was warranted because: (1) investigation was complete and chargesheet filed; (2) Goel had already served ~4 months custody; (3) all evidence is documentary with no tampering risk; (4) over 50% of losses already recovered; and (5) the underlying dispute essentially concerns money recovery, appropriate for civil remedies rather than criminal detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case