Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/30102/2026 of RUBY ALIAS RUBY KASHYAP Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 2 September 2026
(O & M) ::1:: (230) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30102-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 Ruby @ Ruby Kashyap ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
::1::
(230) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30102-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 Ruby @ Ruby Kashyap ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate Mr. Jyotnoor K. Sethi and Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.57 dated 29.03.2026 under Sections 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 125 of BNS, 2023 (Section 109 BNS added later on and Section 125 BNS was deleted), registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar.
2. On the oral request made by the counsel for the petitioner, Sections 25(1-B), (A-H), 30 and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 351(3) of BNS are added in the head note as well as in the prayer clause.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Be that as it may, no injury
::2:: whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioner. As the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2026 but the charges have not been framed so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State, while referring to the reply dated 03.08.2026 contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave. A licensed pistol along with 4 cartridges and one spent cartridge has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession as prayed for. He, however, concedes that it is a case of no injury and that he is in custody since 29.03.2026 but charges have not been framed so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2026 but the charges have not been framed so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
7. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ruby @ Ruby Kashyap is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
8. The petition stands disposed of.
::3::
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 02, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No