Allowed

Nizi Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC31 May 2024CRLMP/2910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's bail petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the impugned order. The court permitted him to travel abroad for four months to fulfill a professional contract, imposing a personal and surety bond to ensure his return, citing protection of his fundamental right to livelihood.

What did the court decide?

Arrest order quashed; petitioner permitted to travel abroad for four months subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50 lakhs and surety bonds from parents.

Nizi Bhandari Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024: RJ-JD:19058]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 2910/2024

¶4

Nizi Bhandari S/o Shri Vijay Bhandari, aged 42 years, resident of 13, Ashdown Court Lalor, Victoria, Australia and presently residing at House No. 580, 10^th C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶8

Smt. Ruchi Jain W/o Nizi Bhandari, D/o Shri Arvind Jain, aged 38 years, resident of Arvind Handicraft, Paota ‘A’ Road, near Kabra School, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nizi Bhandari
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP.
For Respondent No.2	: Ms. Ruchi Jain and her family members

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

31/05/2024

¶14

By way of filing the instant Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in a case arising out of the FIR No.30/2024 against the petitioner and his parents for the

¶15

¶16

offence under Sections 406, 323 & 498 A of the IPC at the Police Station Mahila Thana (Jodhpur City-East), District Jodhpur.

¶17

Briefly states the facts of the case as mentioned in the FIR are that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are husband and wife and they were living in Australia for more than 15 years and they also have the citizenship of Australia. From the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is a citizen of Australia and living there from quite a long time and he works in the field of Digital Marketing and also works for many other companies in Australia and other countries to impart training of Digital Marketing to the employees of the companies. Earlier also, the petitioner was supposed to attend the office on 27.02.2024 but was unable to attend the office because of the issuance of the Look Out Circular (LOC) and he requested the company to postpone the training session for some time. It is further stated that he is liable to perform a contract for Infitel BPO Services company of Philippines from 22.04.2024 to 30.05.2024 and the petitioner has to impart training of Digital Marketing to the employees of the company but due to the issuance of LOC the petitioner was

¶18

¶19

unable to perform the above-mentioned contract. Furthermore, it is asserted that if the petitioner will not go to abroad this time, the company will cancel the contract and will also impose penalty upon him for the breach of contract and this will affect the business of the petitioner as well. The perusal of the record further revealed that the cause of action relates to the year 2008 and the fresh cause of action mentioned in the FIR is highly disputed question of fact and the same will be decided by the learned Trial Court. It is also stated that investigation and trial is pending and will take a long time to conclude, so in the meantime the petitioner may be permitted to go to abroad and pursue his contract as this contract is the only source of his livelihood and in case of failure of the contract, he will be deprived of his livelihood. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has cast an allegation that the respondent No.2 is trying to harass him and his family by filing a false case against them.

¶20

Heard the parties present in person and minutely gone through the niceties of the matter, it is revealing that the marriage of the parties got solemnized in the year 2008 and

¶21

¶22

whereafter, the spouses had gone to abroad where both have taken the citizenship of Australia. During these years, she gave birth to two children and she was happy in her marital life. It seems that there has been some discord between the couple which led to their return and the filing of the FIR by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for marital cruelty. The petitioner is working in abroad since a long time and he is under compulsion to go abroad otherwise he would have to face myriad difficulties and huge monetary loss. He is obligated to perform a contract assigned to him for which he is duty-bound. The criminal case against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 323 & 498 A of the IPC is at its nascent stage and it cannot be speculated that how much time will be taken in culmination of the judicial proceeding. Yet, the investigation is still in progress and charge sheet has not been filed therefore, no idea can be made as to when the judicial proceeding would come to an end and will be concluded.

¶23

It would be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner has also challenged the FIR and a Misc. petition No. 1405/2024 for quashing of the same is pending before this

¶24

¶25

Court in which wide order dated 13.03.2024 was passed where the petitioner was protected from the arrest.

¶26

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that depriving the petitioner from doing his job in smooth manner would mean depriving him from earning his livelihood and which would be an infringement of his fundamental right. The petitioner has been working for more than 15 years in Australia and other countries and has established himself as a professional with high esteem and depriving him from going to abroad will risk to his position and his work as well. Additionally, it is noted that there are no other cases pending against him except arising out of matrimonial dispute. No apprehension has been shown that he will not come back to the country or would flee from justice as his residence is in Jodhpur only and his parents and whole family resides in Jodhpur and also have movable and immovable property in Jodhpur and this shows that he will not flee and will come back to his native place. He assures this Court that after discharging his bounden down duties, he will return back after four months of his immigration for which, he is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and assurance.

¶27

¶28

Simply, on the bald and vague apprehension shown by the Respondent No. 2 that the petitioner will not come back, this Court does not feel it appropriate from disallowing him to visit his work place. To ensure that he will come back, some conditions can be imposed on him which will also ensure that his life and personal liberty will not be curtailed. 7. In this view of the matter, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.2 Jodhpur Metro in a matter arising out of FIR No.30/2024 of Police Station Mahila Thana (Jodhpur City-East), District Jodhpur is hereby quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the petitioner is permitted to go abroad for a limited period i.e., for four months from the date of his immigration check out. The pendency of criminal case arising out of FIR No. 30/2024 of Police Station Mahila Thana (Jodhpur City-East), District Jodhpur shall not be taken as an impediment against him for obtaining a visa to visit abroad provided that the petitioner shall give assurance that he will return back to India after four months from the date of his immigration check out. He shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lacs) and his parents shall furnish

¶29

¶30

surety bond of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty lacs) i.e., Rs. 25,00,000 (Rs. Twenty-Five lacs) by his father and Rs. 25,00,000 (Rs. Twenty-Five Lacs) by his mother. It is further ordered that the parents of the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking regarding assurance of his return within the period of four months and in case, the petitioner does not return within the stipulated period, then the surety bond of the parents shall be forfeited. The amount of Rs. 50 lacs i.e., Rs. 25,00,000 each shall be deposited with the trial Court within a period of 30 days after forfeiture. If the said condition is not fulfilled, then the property of the petitioner and his parents shall be forfeited and the amount recovered shall be deposited in the trial Court and the trial Court will disburse the said amount in the account of the respondent No.2 (Wife).

¶31

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶32

(FARJAND ALI), J

Nizi Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizi Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan

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

Mangu Nath @ Mangi Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Biharichand Vs State and Anr.

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak S/O Pappu Vs State of Rajsthan

Ramzan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan