Petitioner sought permission to travel abroad under inherent powers. Court allowed travel subject to bank guarantee, surety, and undertaking to return by a specified date, setting aside previous refusal.
Permission to travel abroad granted; bank guarantee of ₹20 lacs, surety of ₹1 crore, and undertaking to return by 20.09.2010 made mandatory conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-16262 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-16262 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2010
Pawan Goel
....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for invoking inherent power of this Court seeking permission to travel abroad pending trial in case FIR No.173 dated 07.05.2007 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
It is contended that trial is not likely to conclude as yet. The petitioner had requested the Court for release of his passport as he was to visit abroad. However, the same was declined by the Court vide Orders dated 27.09.2008 and 29.04.2009. His application dated 18.05.2009 was also dismissed vide Order dated 02.06.2009. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
2
Crl. Misc. No.M-16262 of 2009
Kurukshetra dismissed his various applications for release of passport and going abroad on the ground that his passport had been taken away by the prosecution and there was no reason to release his passport enabling him to visit abroad and he cannot go abroad as the same is only with the permission of the Court and that the allegations against him were serious.
The present petition has been opposed by the complainant and the State on the ground that the petitioner has embezzled and misappropriate an amount of ` 60 Crores and thus, it is very likelihood that he may not return to India to face trial if the permission is granted to him to go abroad and that his brother is involved in COFFEPOSA case and was a proclaimed offender. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has received various invitations from U.S.A and U.K concerning his business for inspection of goods including an invitation from Asian Business Development and Coordination which has come from the Ministry of Enterprise Development and Investment Promotion. Therefore, it is necessary to attend the same in view of his business.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready to deposit Bank Guarantee to the tune of 20 lacs and is also willing to furnish heavy surety to the tune of 2 crores. The objection of learned counsel for the respondent that his brother is involved in COFFEPOSA case, cannot be a ground to reject the prayer of the petitioner for going abroad. It is not disputed that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and during the said period, the petitioner has repeatedly joined investigation. The petitioner has also placed on record his affidavit dated 06.08.2009 giving the detail of his property in India.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Order dated 02.06.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra,
Crl. Misc. No.M-16262 of 2009
3
whereby, the application to grant permission to the petitioner to go abroad and release of his passport was dismissed is set aside and the petitioner is, accordingly, permitted to travel abroad subject to ;
(a) his filing an affidavit before the trial Court undertaking to return to India on or before 20.09.2010.
(b) furnishing bank guarantee of an amount of ` 20 lacs accompanied by an affidavit deposing therein that in case, he fails to return to India by the said date, the said bank guarantee shall be released to the State of Punjab without protest and without prejudice to the rights of the State to initiate appropriate proceedings against him.
(c) furnishing surety of ` 1 crore.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
18.08.2010 gurpreet
JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel abroad pending trial despite embroilment in cheque fraud charges.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Goel
The State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
