RAJESH GUPTA vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR — CRM-M/65614/2024

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011830602024

Filing Number

CRM-M/101462/2024

Filing Date

30-Dec-2024

Registration No

CRM-M/65614/2024

Registration Date

30-Dec-2024

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

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJESH GUPTA

    Adv. RAJIV KUMAR SAINI

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

  3. 3.SURESH SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Rajesh Gupta's anticipatory bail petition in a fraud case involving ₹10.85 lakh allegedly taken under false pretense of arranging overseas work visas. Although previously granted interim protection based on his assurance to settle the dispute, Gupta failed to honor the mediation settlement terms, making no substantial payment despite commitments. The court found his judicial undertaking was merely a strategic artifice to secure liberty rather than genuine intent to resolve the matter, ruling that such breach of court-sanctioned compromises constitutes contempt and cannot be countenanced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Dec-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/65614/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Rajesh Gupta's anticipatory bail petition in a fraud case involving ₹10.85 lakh allegedly taken under false pretense of arranging overseas work visas. Although previously granted interim protection based on his assurance to settle the dispute, Gupta failed to honor the mediation settlement terms, making no substantial payment despite commitments. The court found his judicial undertaking was merely a strategic artifice to secure liberty rather than genuine intent to resolve the matter, ruling that such breach of court-sanctioned compromises constitutes contempt and cannot be countenanced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case