Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh Mann vs State Of Punjab on 1 February, 2022
CRM-M-4095-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-4095-2022
Date of decision : 01.02.2022
Jagjit Singh Mann
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.V.G.Jauhar, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the
condition of furnishing bank guarantee in the impugned order dated
06.01.2022 (Annxure P-9) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had moved an application for grant of permission to the petitioner
Jagjit Singh Mann to go abroad. It is further submitted that it was stated in
the application that the petitioner is a diabetic person and his treatment of
diabetes and eye sight was being conducted at Arden, Hereford and
Worcestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP), Worcester, UK
and all his family members are residing in United Kingdom and no family
member of the petitioner resides in India so as to look after him. A prayer
was thus, made for permitting him to go for United Kingdom for a period of
1 of 4
four months. It is further submitted that although counsel for the State had
opposed the said application but vide order dated 06.01.2022, the
application was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to go abroad, i.e.
to the United Kingdom for a period of four months w.e.f. 01.02.2022, with a
direction to return to India by 01.06.2022 but the same had been made
subject to furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15 lacs by the
petitioner. Other conditions were also imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised limited challenge
to the order dated 06.01.2022 inasmuch as he has submitted that the
petitioner is ready to comply with all the terms and conditions laid down in
the said order except for furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15 lacs.
It is stated that the petitioner is ready to execute personal bonds in the sum
of Rs.15 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate and is
also ready to give two sureties in the sum of Rs.15 lacs each to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court / Duty Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments of coordinate Benches as well as a Division Bench of this Court
in Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another, reported
as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 201; Arshdeep Singh vs. Union Territory,
Chandigarh, reported as 2017(1) Law Herald 897; Vivek Seth vs. State of
Punjab, reported as 2016(3) Law Herald 2221; Arun Kapoor vs. State of
Haryana, reported as 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 594; and Bikramjit Singh
@ Bikram vs. State of Punjab reported as 2014(32) RCR (Criminal) 467 to
contend that in all the said cases only personal bond and surety bond /
sureties were furnished and in none of the said cases, the condition of
furnishing bank guarantee was imposed.
2 of 4
Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Sr.DAG, Punjab, appears
and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has submitted that
he is fully prepare to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed
the present petition and has submitted that the impugned order is legal and
in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the paper book.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had moved an application
for grant of permission to him in order to go abroad on the averments that
the petitioner has to undergo treatment for diabetes and also problems with
respect to eye sight and the said treatment is to be conducted at Arden,
Hereford and Worcestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP),
Worcester, UK. The said application was allowed vide order dated
06.01.2022 after considering the fact that the petitioner had earlier gone
abroad after having taken permission from the trial Court and duly returned
without causing any prejudice to the trial. It had been observed that the
evidence has already been recorded and only pronouncement of final
judgment, which has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2019
in a petition filed by the complainant, is still pending for adjudication and is
now listed for 06.07.2022. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar, after considering all the facts had allowed the application and
had permitted the petitioner to visit U.K. for a period of 4 months, w.e.f.
01.02.2022, with a direction to return India by 01.06.2022. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to comply with all the terms
and conditions as mentioned in the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 and is
3 of 4
challenging the impugned order only on the limited aspect whereby the
petitioner has been asked to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15
lacs. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said condition
is very onerous and has relied upon various orders passed by the coordinate
Benches of this Court in Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar's case (supra),
Arshdeep Singh's case (supra), Vivek Seth's case (supra), Arun Kapoor's
case (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in Bikramjit Singh @
Bikram's case (supra) to contend that in none of the said cases, the
condition of furnishing bank guarantee had been imposed.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances as also
the law laid down in various judgments cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the observations that the
impugned order dated 06.01.2022 is upheld and only the condition "subject
to furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.15 lacs" is modified and in
place of said condition, the following condition is imposed:-
"the petitioner shall execute a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.15 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Court / Duty
Magistrate and would also furnish two sureties in the
sum of Rs.15 lacs each to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court / Duty Magistrate".
Rest of the conditions as imposed in the impugned order dated 06.01.2022
would remain the same.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
February 01, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
