Harpuneet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3324 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3324 MP
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Harpuneet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

                                                           1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                            ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60336 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          HARPUNEET SINGH S/O SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, AGED
                          ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 31/20,
                          EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ADITYA GOYAL - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                MAHILA THANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SMT. PREETI KOUR W/O HARPUNEET SINGH
                                KATHURIYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ADD- 151,
                                ANNEX, VISHNUPURI INDORE (M.P.) / ALSO AT:
                                452 N. X. VISHNUPURI. INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT NO.1 / STATE AND
                          SHRI AJIT KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                            ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the impugned order dated 09/12/2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.425/2022 by Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, whereby the revisional Court affirmed the order dated 08/09/2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 2/24/2023 12:10:20 PM

No.647/2021 by which the prayer of the petitioner for deletion / modification / relaxation of condition No.5 of the bail order dated 02/02/2021 has been rejected. Condition No.5 imposed by the trial Court reads as under:-

"Accused shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court."

2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has business in Thailand but his family members are residing in India. His son is also studying in India, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding from India. Even on the earlier occasion, petitioner has gone to Thailand to attend his business and has always reported back to India and before the trial Court. He is engaged in

hospitality work in Thailand and is facing lot of hardship in conducting work as the nature of petitioner's work requires travelling outside India. Right to work and travel abroad is a part of fundamental right as defined by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam APO, New Delhi reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836, therefore, he has filed an application before the trial Court deleting the condition No.5 in the said bail order, but the trial Court has dismissed his application vid e order dated 08/09/2022. He challenged the said order before the revisional Court, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 09/12/2022. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nature of the petitioner's work required him to travel abroad frequently and every time he requires to seek permission from the trial Court, which causes great hardship. Petitioner has not caused any adjournment in the trial. Impugned order passed by the Courts below are erroneous and against the law and facts. Hence, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 2/24/2023 12:10:20 PM

prays that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below be set aside by deleting the condition No.5 in the aforesaid bail order.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the various orders / judgments delivered in the case of Sandeep Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No.33718 of 2022, decided on 19/07/2022), Dr. Anira Iqbal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (M.Cr.C.No.19222 of 2021, decided on 08/04/2021), Jagdish and Another Vs. Union of India (M.Cr.C.No.4923 of 2022, decided on 31/03/2022), Manmohan Singh Vs. C.B.I. reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 2019.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also opposes the aforesaid prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that earlier applicant was given permission to travel abroad but he did not come back from the abroad on the scheduled time. Petitioner himself admits in his statement that he did not carry any business in Thailand. Petitioner is avoiding the condition No.5 of bail order. If the condition No.5 is deleted and he is permitted to travel abroad, he will fled away from India. Hence, he prays that petition be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 . From perusal of the record, it appears that applicant has filed Work

Permit of Thailand, therefore, it appears that he is doing business in Thailand. During the pendency of this litigation, petition has temporarily gone abroad two times after obtaining permission of this Court and both the times he has reported back to India.

9. This Court is conscious of the fact that every citizen of this country is entitled to enhance his/her academic qualification and pursue the profession of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 2/24/2023 12:10:20 PM

his/her choice. However, it is equally true that if the said person is also subjected to criminal prosecution then the criminal law with all its rigors would squarely apply to ensure that the investigation and the criminal trial are not hampered by exercise of the said entitlement.

10. Thus, this Court instead of denying the prayer made adopts a middle path so that the personal liability and aspirations and so also the requirements of criminal dispensation system are taken care of. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is permitted to go abroad with the following directions:-

(a) Condition No.5 imposed vide order dated 02/02/2021 passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No.647/2021 is relaxed and petitioner is permitted to travel to Thailand for a period of four weeks;

(b) It is directed that the petitioner after obtaining visa and after completing all the other formalities for travel to abroad shall file an application before the trial Court by mentioning the details of travel then the trial Court shall permit the petitioner for a period of four weeks;