Ravinder Singh Alias Ravi Saab v. State Of Ut Chandigarh
!
"# $!%&'&"()
* * *
+ , + ,
***! & &"(!.
'
+,,
, **
***!'/"($!( ' )
0 1 * ,
+
,*
2
!
"
# $ +
,*
23 *
. 4
# %
&' ( ) % *+* % ,
, -./) & + +& *+*0%
12&+3&*+ *+ . $'3+1$
(%
&*+ *+ .$2 $
4 5
$ % ,
,
* $% ( # ( , %
% -./ ,( ) % %%6 7
% 8
!!
"
#
!$%
& '(
()#)*#++)
,
().,(++)
!!
"
#
!$%
& '(
/ "
0 / ! !0
"
.
.# +++ $
1"
/"
3 ! 4
!""
%
5
6
%
"0
" $ 6
/ "
/ ! !0 4 0
'
0 2786
,
!!
"
#
!$%
& '(
4
0 "/ 0 4
!!
" 4 4
/
"0 / "
0
"
1"
6/
"
"
/
4
"
/
"
"
0 " "
"
0/
4
0 "
"
0
/ "
" 0
6/
/
"
/
, .# +++ $
/
9" /
0 "
"
':,,++,::+ 222 !
:
++ +++ $
"
6 0
+ 0 1"
0"
4
/
9" / 1" 0"
"
0 " "
0"
/ " "
6
0
/
/ "
! !0
/
"
/
/
;"
/ "
! !0
: 6
"
"
/ "
! !0
/ "
/
/ "
/
/ "
0/ "
/
" 4 /
* 6
4
4
0
0/
4
4
0
4 /
/ / "
! !0
/
" 4 /
. 6
4 /
"
0"
4
"
0"
4
4
"
' 4
/
9" /
1"
"
"
/
0"
/
"
"
/ 4 "
"
/ "
/"
"0/
1"
0
0
/ "
! !0 0
/
0 1" 0
"
" <" 0
"
0 /
"
/"
/"
$ =
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and has not committed the offence. He contends that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s B.B. Council which provides wide range of services including skilled immigration and student visas. He contends that there was no forgery or fabrication of any documents provided by the petitioner at any stage whatsoever and the FIR has been registered with an intent to harass and
& humiliate the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner further argued with vehemence that the complainant has failed to establish that the necessary ingredients of forgery or cheating, at the time of entering into transaction, are fulfilled. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2025. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report already stands filed. It is submitted that the offences in question are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the same are likely to take long before trial comes to an end. Learned counsel appearing for the U.T. Chandigarh contends that there are 16 other criminal cases of similar nature that have been registered against the petitioner in which he has duped as many as 127 victims for a sum of Rs.4,65,47,500/- approximately.
He contends that the petitioner is thus habitual of committing such and similar offences. He thus submits that taking into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in large number of such instances, the period of custody of about six months undergone by the petitioner cannot be said to be unduly long. He further contends that the regular bail of the petitioner in another FIR has already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2026 passed in CRMM-67744-2025.
(3 %,
*4 , % , (, ,( $% vide order dated 19.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-67744-2025 . , , % (
0
( ,($ $%
#
( 4 #, ,
, % : $%
, ,
.%5
*
+
,*
2 . 6 .".