Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh Alias Mani vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045109
2024:PHHC:045109
CRM-M-9901-2024 -1-
(307)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9901-2024
Date of Decision:03.04.2024
MANPREET SINGH ALIAS MANI
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Saroha, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of the order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judge
Special Court, Sangrur in case titled as State Vs. Manpreet Singh @ Mani
arising out of FIR No.133 dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) registered under
Sections 22, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur
whereby the application to grant permission to visit Surrey in British
Columbia (Canada) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.133 dated
29.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) came to be registered against the accused persons.
On investigation being conducted, the petitioner was found to be innocent and
was placed in Column No.2.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045109
2024:PHHC:045109
3. Meanwhile, the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by
this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) and a condition was
imposed upon him that he was to deposit his passport forthwith.
4. The Investigating Agency proceeded to re-investigate the matter.
On being aggrieved against the order of re-investigation, the petitioner
approached this Court vide CRM-M-56079-2023 seeking quashing of the
order of re-investigation and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
including the supplementary challan.
5. This Court passed the following order dated 20.12.2023
(Annexure P-7) held as under:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once
the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had been submitted
exonerating the petitioner, a further investigation/
reinvestigation could only have been ordered after an
application in that regard had been moved before the
appropriate Court seeking its permission for
further/reinvestigation which is seized of the matter and not
unilaterally by a superior police officer. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment in 'Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali @
Deepak 2013(5) SCC 762'.
Notice of motion for 11.03.2024.
In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial
Court qua the petitioner alone shall remain stayed. The Trial
may proceed against the other accused."
6. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application seeking
permission to travel abroad stating therein that he had applied for Permanent
Residency in Canada and in order to keep alive his application, he needed to
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045109
2024:PHHC:045109
return back immediately. The copy of the said application and the letter issued
by the Immigration Consultant are attached as Annexures P-8 and P-9 to the
petition.
7. However, vide the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure
P-1), the application seeking permission to travel abroad was declined.
8. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial
Court had failed to appreciate the that the petitioner was a resident of Canada
and his family stays there. He was required to return back so as to keep alive
his application regarding Permanent Residency. As proceedings had been
stayed qua him, permission ought to have been accorded to him to travel
abroad on the imposition of any conditions that the Court thinks fit. In fact,
under normal circumstances permission to travel abroad ought to be granted
as the right to travel abroad was a fundamental right. He, therefore contends
that the passport of the petitioner be released enabling him to travel to Canada
on the imposition of conditions which this Court deems fit.
10. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand contends
that there was every possibility that the petitioner would not return back to
face Trial and therefore, permission ought not to be accorded to him. He,
however, fairly states that in case appropriate conditions are imposed upon
him then he could be granted permission in accordance with law.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045109
2024:PHHC:045109
12. When this matter had been come up for hearing before this
Court, on 11.03.2024 this Court had directed the State to verify the details of
the property owned by the petitioner. Vide reply dated 01.04.2024, it was
revealed that the petitioner had no immovable property. Thereafter, the details
of the property of the father of the petitioner were sought and vide reply dated
02.04.2024 it came to light that the father of the petitioner Sukhdev Singh
was the owner of land measuring 21 Kanals 12 Marlas the collector rate of
which was Rs.24,30,000/-.
13. Admittedly, the family of the petitioner resides in Canada. He has
sought Permanent Residency there for which his presence in Canada is
necessary. Further, the proceedings qua him has been stayed by this Court.
Therefore, at this stage, there is little possibility of the Trial proceeding qua
him.
14. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to order the release of
the passport of the petitioner enabling him to travel abroad to Canada subject
to the following conditions:-
i) The father of the petitioner namely, Sukhdev Singh shall
deposit the original papers of his land measuring 21
Kanals 12 Marlas with the Trial Court.
ii) The Revenue Authorities would make an entry in the
record that this property cannot be sold during the
pendency of the Trial.
iii) The petitioner shall deposit an FDR of Rs.20 lakhs with
the Trial Court which shall stand forfeited if he does not
join proceedings if and when require to do so in
accordance with law.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045109
2024:PHHC:045109
iv) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that he
shall return back to India if and when require to do so in
accordance with law.
15. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned
terms.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
03.04.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
