Read Order: Daljit Singh Pandher v. State Of Punjab & Ors


LE Staff

Chandigarh, October 25, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court  has opined that if the person is seeking to travel that too outside India, during the pendency of a criminal case against him, the Court shall have to be even more circumspect while granting any such permission.

The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul dismissed the petition which challenged the order dated September 6,2021 by  which petitioner’s application seeking permission to go to Canada for one year was dismissed by the Trial Court.

The petitioner’s counsel mainly contended that due to the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Payal District Ludhiana, the petitioner had not only been unable to join his job at Canada but also had been unable to meet his family since December, 2018.

While placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Arun Kapoor vs. State of Haryana, and Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another, the counsel submitted that it is a cardinal principal that every person is deemed to be innocent till proven guilty and thus, his fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against him.

The Bench observed that a perusal of the impugned Order revealed that though the petitioner had been seeking permission to go to Canada for joining back his work, however, he had not placed on record any supporting document to show that he was actually employed in Canada.

The Bench also went on to add that the Trial Court rightly observed while dismissing his application that his absence for one year would result in the delay of the trial since evidence had not yet commenced.

While mentioning that the right of a person to travel admittedly cannot be curtailed, the Court clarified that if the person is seeking to travel that too outside India, during the pendency of a criminal case against him, the Court shall have to be even more circumspect while granting any such permission.

Thus, the Bench found it apposite to observe that since the petitioner is a Canadian citizen, his assertion that he should be permitted to travel abroad was devoid of any merit as India too is a foreign country for him and there could be a likelihood that in case the petitioner is permitted to travel to Canada he may abscond.

Taking these circumstances into consideration, the Court was not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, and the present petition stood dismissed.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment