[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh Rana Alias Ranbeer Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2026
CRM-M-48390-2025 (O&M) 1
and other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
202
Date of decision: 16.01.2026
(1) CRM-M-48390-2025 (O&M)
KULWANT SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
(2) CRM-M-48420-2025 (O&M)
BHUPINDERPAL SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
(3) CRM-M-49708-2025 (O&M)
KXXXXXX V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
(4) CRM-M-59320-2025 (O&M)
RANBIR SINGH RANA ALIAS RANBEER SINGH SANDHU V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
(5) CRM-M-62329-2025 (O&M)
KULWINDER KAUR V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. B.S. Jatana, Advocate;
Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate;
Mr. Angrej Singh Sarwara and
Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. These cases are disposed of by this common order as they arise out
of the same FIR.
2. Prayer in the present petitions filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.94 dated 17.06.2025,
registered under Sections 318(4), 179, 180, 308(2), 61(2) BNS (Old Sections
420, 237, 240, 384, 120-B IPC) at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala.
3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been in custody
for about 7 months. They allege false implication. There is no complainant and
victim in the present cases, who can be stated to have been duped as also there
1 of 4
and other connected cases
is no evidence with regard to exchange of the same but for being in possession
of counterfeit currency and with regard to which, FSL is also awaited and it
would be during trial that the same can be proved as alleged. Challan was
presented on 14.08.2025, however, charges have not been framed; in all there
are 12 prosecution witnesses. Petitioners-Kulwant Singh, Bhupinderpal Singh,
Karamjit Kaur are not involved in any other case while Kulwinder Kaur is
involved in 1 more FIR and Ranbir Singh Rana alias Ranbeer Singh Sandhu in 9
other cases, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
4. The custody certificates dated 14.01.2026, filed by the learned
State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind
bars for 6 months and 26 days.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioners of exchange of counterfeit currency
for genuine. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to
stage and Petitioners-Kulwant Singh, Bhupinderpal Singh, Karamjit Kaur being
not involved in any other case and Kulwinder Kaur & Ranbir Singh Rana alias
Ranbeer Singh Sandhu on bail in other cases.
6. Heard.
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such
2 of 4
and other connected cases
as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC
648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious
and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors
by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioners are in custody for the last 6 months and 26 days; petitioners-
Kulwant Singh, Bhupinderpal Singh, Karamjit Kaur are not involved in any
other case while Kulwinder Kaur & Ranbir Singh Rana alias Ranbeer Singh
Sandhu are bail in other cases; challan stands presented on 14.08.2025,
however, charges are yet to be framed and there are a total of 12 prosecution
witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time and further incarceration
of the petitioners would be violative of their right enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, the present petitions are allowed.
9. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a
specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, they are accused, or for
commission of which they are suspected of.
(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her
3 of 4
and other connected cases
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
(vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse her
liberty.
(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their address and mobile
number by way of affidavit/s to the trial Court and not
change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any
reasons, they seek to change either of the aforesaid, it
shall be done only with prior information to the
learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioners.
10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioners by this order.
11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made
herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not
be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
16.01.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
