LEHNA SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/21565/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010652622026

Filing Number

CRM-M/29846/2026

Filing Date

18-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/21565/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Coram

Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LEHNA SINGH

    Adv. VISHAL

  2. 2.LEHNA SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.LEHNA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/21565/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Lehna Singh's petition for pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in an immigration fraud case. Singh was accused of cheating a complainant of ₹35 lakhs by falsely promising to send his son to America, charges involving criminal breach of trust, cheating, and violation of travel professional regulations. Justice Sumeet Goel held that the allegations were grave and specific, characterizing such offences as organized human trafficking disguised as immigration consultancy that undermine public trust and national interest. The court determined that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and rejected bail to prevent impediment to inquiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/21565/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/21565/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Lehna Singh's petition for pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in an immigration fraud case. Singh was accused of cheating a complainant of ₹35 lakhs by falsely promising to send his son to America, charges involving criminal breach of trust, cheating, and violation of travel professional regulations. Justice Sumeet Goel held that the allegations were grave and specific, characterizing such offences as organized human trafficking disguised as immigration consultancy that undermine public trust and national interest. The court determined that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and rejected bail to prevent impediment to inquiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case