SANJAY SINHA vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRM-M/24370/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010716592026

Filing Number

CRM-M/33150/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/24370/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.2 - REGULAR BAIL (HARYANA) ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY SINHA

    Adv. Harkirat Singh Randhawa

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M No. 24370/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Sanjay Sinha, director of M/s GGJ Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who was arrested for allegedly defrauding 56 investors of ₹9.05 crore through false promises of franchise and business opportunities under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Though the court acknowledged the serious nature of the economic fraud charges and the petitioner's involvement in 32 other similar cases, it found that 53 of 56 victims had already settled, the case relied primarily on documentary evidence already seized, and the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two months with trial progress minimal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/24370/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M No. 24370/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Sanjay Sinha, director of M/s GGJ Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who was arrested for allegedly defrauding 56 investors of ₹9.05 crore through false promises of franchise and business opportunities under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Though the court acknowledged the serious nature of the economic fraud charges and the petitioner's involvement in 32 other similar cases, it found that 53 of 56 victims had already settled, the case relied primarily on documentary evidence already seized, and the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two months with trial progress minimal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case