Disposed

Manjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Oct 2024CRM-M/48872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An accused in a vigilance-bureau corruption case, already on anticipatory bail, sought six months' leave to visit his son hospitalised in New Zealand after an accident. The court granted permission for three months, requiring a security bond and barring disposal of immovable property.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to travel abroad to New Zealand for 03 months, conditional on not disposing immovable property and furnishing a ₹10,00,000 security bond with one surety.

Manjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

********

¶3

143+204

¶4

CRM-40744-2024 in/and CRM-M-48872-2024 Date of Decision.:07.10.2024

¶5

Manjinder Singh …..Pe11oner Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:Mr. Kamaldip Singh, Sidhu Advocate for the pe��oner. (through Video Conferencing) .

¶8

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ****

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Pe��oner is an accused in FIR No.07 dated 13.03.2024 registered at Police Sta�on Vigilance Bureau, District Bathinda under Sec�on 7 of Preven�on of Corrup�on Act, 1988.

¶11

He was allowed an�cipatory bail in aforesaid case by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-17895-2024 (copy Annexure P-2).

¶12

By way of this pe��on filed under Sec�on 528 of the Bhara�ya Nagrarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pe��oner seeks permission of 06 months to go abroad as his son namely Gurwinder Singh has met with an accident on 23.09.2024 and is presently admi<ed in Christchurch Hospital, New Zealand. He is stated to be on ven�lator support in serious condi�on.

¶13

Vide an order dated 30.09.2024, the inves�ga�ng agency was

¶14

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.07 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-40744-2024 in/and CRM-M-48872-2024

¶16

-2-

¶17

directed to contact the hospital where the son of the pe��oner was stated to be receiving medical treatment subsequent to the accident in ques�on. Necessary reply was filed by the respondent- State and then on 04.10.2024, following order was passed:

¶18

“In compliance of order dated 27.09.2024 passed by this Court, affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit, Sri Muktsar Sahib, has been filed in Court, which is taken on record.

¶19

While drawing the a<en�on of this Cout to the affidavit, which has been filed today, in par�cular to paragraph 8, it has not been disputed that the son of the pe��oner is indeed lying in a serious condi�on in the ICU at Christchurch Hospital, New Zealand. However, learned State counsel has submi<ed that inves�ga�on is s�ll pending in the instant case, coupled with the fact that an applica�on has also been moved for obtaining the voice sample of the pe��oner and the coaccused. Learned counsel submits that although the son of the pe��oner has indeed been injured in a motor-vehicular accident in New Zealand, however, there could be a likelihood of the pe��oner not returning to India once he is permi<ed to go abroad.

¶20

Learned counsel for the pe��oner submits that the pe��oner is willing to furnish an affidavit detailing all his movable and immovable proper�es in India and he could be put to any stringent condi�ons.

¶21

Let an affidavit of the pe��oner in the said regard be filed on or before the next date of hearing.

¶22

A request has been made by learned counsel for the pe��oner for keeping the instant pe��on during the Dussehra break.

¶23

On his request, adjourned to 07.10.2024.

¶24

To be put up before the vaca�on Bench.”

¶25

Now, in compliance of the order dated 04.10.2024, pe��oner

¶26

has moved an applica�on bearing No.CRM-40744-2024 to place on record his affidavit (Annexure P-1) detailing all his movable and immovable

¶27

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.07 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-40744-2024 in/and CRM-M-48872-2024

¶29

-3-

¶30

proper�es in India. Said Affidavit (Annexure A-1) is taken on record. Applica�on bearing No.CRM-40744-2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Learned State counsel has not opposed the request of the pe��oner for gran�ng him permission to go abroad i.e. New Zealand where his son is presently admi<ed in hospital in a serious condi�on. However learned State counsel prays to impose certain strict condi�ons upon the pe��oner.

¶32

Looking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, the pe��on is accepted.

¶33

Pe��oner is granted permission to go abroad i.e. New Zealand to visit his ailing son where he is stated to be admi<ed on account of accidental injuries in serious condi�on, for a period of 03 months, which shall be effec�ve from the date of his departure from India. This is subject to the condi�on that pe��oner shall not dispose of his immovable proper�es i.e. agricultural land 02 Kanal 14 Marla, as per details given in the affidavit (Annexure A-1). Apart from this, pe��oner shall also furnish a security bond in the sum of ₹10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the sa�sfac�on of concerned Area/Duty Magistrate.

¶34

Disposed of accordingly.

¶35

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶36

October 07, 2024

¶37

Nee�ka Tuteja

¶38

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶39

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.07 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sunita Rani and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Assan Kalan Vs Surender and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Ram Parkash and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Harjot Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwant Singh Dhillon Alias Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab