ANOOP vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/26149/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010734252026

Filing Number

CRM-M/34047/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26149/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

40.12 - REGULAR BAIL OF CYBER CRIME HARYANA ( 212 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANOOP

    Adv. OMKAR CHAUHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Summary: CRM-M/26149/2026 - Anoop v. State of Haryana The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to Anoop in his fourth bail petition on May 13, 2026. Anoop was accused of cyber fraud involving a digital arrest scam where Rs. 10,10,000 was defrauded from the complainant. The court found that after 1 year 1 month 21 days in custody, the victim had already recovered the money (as testified before the trial court), nothing remained to be recovered, and the trial would take considerable time. The court emphasized principles that bail is the general rule, not the exception, and lengthy pre-trial detention violates constitutional rights to speedy trial. The court released Anoop on personal and surety bonds with conditions prohibiting witness intimidation, requiring address notification, and restricting travel outside India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26149/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: CRM-M/26149/2026 - Anoop v. State of Haryana The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to Anoop in his fourth bail petition on May 13, 2026. Anoop was accused of cyber fraud involving a digital arrest scam where Rs. 10,10,000 was defrauded from the complainant. The court found that after 1 year 1 month 21 days in custody, the victim had already recovered the money (as testified before the trial court), nothing remained to be recovered, and the trial would take considerable time. The court emphasized principles that bail is the general rule, not the exception, and lengthy pre-trial detention violates constitutional rights to speedy trial. The court released Anoop on personal and surety bonds with conditions prohibiting witness intimidation, requiring address notification, and restricting travel outside India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case