Daljit Singh Pandher vs State Of Punjab And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2935 P&H

132    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRM-M-42836-2021
                                                      Decided on : 11.10.2021

Daljit Singh Pandher                                         ...... Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Punjab & ors.                                       ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :      Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

                           ****

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)

The petitioner by way of instant petition has impugned the

order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-6) vide which his application seeking

permission to go to Canada for one year was dismissed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that due

to the pendency of a criminal case (FIR No.24 dated 05.03.2019 under

Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Payal District

Ludhiana) he has not only been unable to join his job at Canada but also has

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, 2004(4) RCR (Crl.) 594 and Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar vs.

State of Punjab and another, 2010(1) RCR (Crl.) 201 learned counsel

submits 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.

Heard learned counsel and perused the material available on

record including the case laws on which he has placed reliance.

1 of 2

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that though the

petitioner is seeking permission to go to Canada for joining back his work,

however, he has not placed on record any supporting document to show that

he was actually employed in Canada. Not only this, trial Court rightly

observed while dismissing his application (Annexure P-6) that his absence

for one year would result in the delay of the trial since evidence had not yet

commenced.

The right of a person to travel admittedly cannot be curtailed.

However, 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. Coming to the case

in hand, it would be apposite to observe that since the petitioner is a

Canadian citizen, his assertion that he should be permitted to travel abroad

is 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.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to

invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the

present petition stands dismissed.

                                              (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
                                                      JUDGE

11.10.2021
sonia
             Whether speaking/reasoned:             Yes/No
             Whether reportable :                   Yes/No




                                     2 of 2