Ruby Singh Alias Ravi v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.45700 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 Ruby Singh @ Ravi ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. G. C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present third petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.62, dated 13.03.2024, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C of IPC (Sections 489-D and 120-B IPC added later on), registered at Police Station City Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Shyam Lal. It was alleged that on 12.03.2024, at about 8/8:30 P.M., the complainant was present at his shop, where on person came to purchase a pack of red & white cigarette. Rate of pack was Rs.50/- and the said person gave a note of Rs.200/-, thus, the complainant returned Rs.150/- along with cigarette. Thereafter the complainant checked Rs.200/- note and

-2the same was found counterfeited. The complainant immediately rushed to market to search the person. In the meantime, Balkishan, who have an egg shop near the liquor shop, told the complainant that one person gave him Rs.100/- counterfeited note. After some time, the said person was found going on the road. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Ruby Singh @ Ravi (petitioner). The car, in which Ruby Singh @ Ravi came, ran away from the spot. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2024. On completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing CRM-M-35650-2024 and CRM-M-90732025, however the same were dismissed as withdraw/as not pressed vide orders dated 31.07.2024 and 15.05.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present third petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the statement of one

-3Shyam Lal. He has submitted that the alleged recovery of 46 counterfeited notes has been planted upon the petitioner. He has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the total alleged counterfeit currency was found to be of Rs.5800/-. He has submitted that there is no independent witness for establishing the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 02 years. He has submitted that the investigation is complete and the charges have already been framed. He has submitted that though the petitioner is falsely involved in 04 other cases, however, in 03 of the cases, he has been acquitted and in 01 case, he is on bail.

4.

Status report dated 10.11.2025 by way of an affidavit of Rajat Gulia, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar on behalf of the respondent-State has already been filed by the learned State counsel in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the information was specifically provided about the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the petitioner was apprehended. He has submitted that from the personal search of the petitioner, 46 counterfeit currency notes were recovered and the total denomination of the currency was Rs.5800/-. He has submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents wherein he was found to be involved in similar cases on earlier occasion as well. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 07 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined so far. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. 6.

Heard.

-47.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged counterfeit currency recovered from the petitioner is of denomination of Rs.5800/-. The petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 02 years as on 12.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 04 other cases, however in 03 of the cases, he has been acquitted and in 01 case, he is on bail. Out of total 07 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined so far. 8.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

9.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 10.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 13.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No