Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
CRM-M No.17811 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
149
CRM-M No.17811 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.04.2025
Harjinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 for setting-aside the order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure
P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in the
case FIR No.271 dated 12.11.2024, registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 341, 323,
324, 148 and 149 IPC), read with Section 3(1)(a) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the
SC/ST Act'), at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, vide which
the application filed by the petitioner to travel abroad i.e. Spain, for a
period of 09 months from 10.02.2025 to 10.11.2025, has been allowed
and the petitioner has been granted permission to travel abroad from
15.02.2025 to 15.04.2025. Further prayer has been made to modify the
impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) and grant more time
to the petitioner to stay in Spain till 10.11.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR (supra), with the
allegations related to causing injury, wrongful confinement, and the
SC/ST Act. It is a case of version and cross-version as one DDR No.015
dated 20.11.2024 has got been registered by Ravinder Kaur, sister-in-
law of the present petitioner, by levelling the allegations that the
complainant/respondent No.2, had attacked the petitioner's family in the
year 2020, and now, driven by revenge, the FIR (supra) has been
registered against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was the
complainant and his group who were the aggressor party, who entered
the house of petitioner and caused injuries to him and damaged his
property. Further, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail due to the
lack of serious charges and later on, he filed application to travel abroad
for work and the learned trial Court allowed the same and granted
permission to him to travel abroad for a period of 02 months under strict
conditions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner had requested permission to travel to Spain from 10-02-2025
to 10-11-2025, as he works as a Chef there and needs to follow Spain's
Visa Rules, which require him to stay in the country for over 06 months.
However, the learned trial Court only allowed him 02 months i.e. from
15-02-2025 to 15-04-2025 with a condition that he cannot claim
extension of period for his stay in abroad. He contends that this sole
condition will create serious difficulties for the petitioner, who has been
living and working in Spain for over 15 years and the restriction could
cause him to lose his job and work visa. Moreover, the petitioner has
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
already met all other conditions imposed by learned trial Court,
including providing a bank guarantee of Rs.20 lakh and two sureties. He
further submits that the learned trial Court's strict condition, preventing
him from extending his stay, is unfair and could have a damaging
impact on his career and livelihood. Further the investigation is under
process as challan is yet to be presented in the FIR (supra).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Criminal Appeal
No.648 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3420 of 2020) decided on
01.10.2020 as well as the judgment of this Court in Amit Sureshmal
Lodha Vs. State of Haryana CRM-M-10143-2022 decided on
14.03.2022.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in
the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes
the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that
there is every possibility that petitioner would flee from the process of
law and would abscond from the prosecution. However, he could not
controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case
and the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as laid down in
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC
248.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner is involved in the
FIR (supra) on account of the previous enmity dispute between the
parties and there is nothing on record which would remotely suggest
that the petitioner would flee from justice and not join proceedings after
he went abroad. The petitioner has already been granted the permission
to travel abroad i.e. from 15.02.2025 to 15.04.2025, vide impugned
order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur. Further considering the fact that the petitioner has worked
in Spain for over 15 years and he has to follow the Spain's Visa Rules
during his stay, which require him to stay in the said country for more
than 06 months and therefore, limiting his stay to just 02 months would
cause significant hardship, risking his job and work Visa. The petitioner
has met all the required conditions, including providing a bank
guarantee and sureties. A delicate balance must be struck between the
rights of the accused and the victim. Justice and compassion are
mutually inclusive. While accountability and fairness are integral facets
of justice, the idea of just justice can only be realised through
compassion. However, the said purpose cannot be achieved if justice is
dispensed only on the anvil of accountability in a mechanical manner,
devoid of context and nuance.
8. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.
Viswanathan v. M/s. S.K. Tiles & Potteries P. Ltd. & Ors 2010 (4) SCC
(Cri) 298, while discussing the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has
observed that the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to
secure the ends of justice and rectify any wrongs that have crept in
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
course of administration of justice. Speaking through Justice Dr. Arijit
Pasayat, the following was held:
"14. Exercise of power under section 482 of the Code in a
case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The
Section does not confer any new powers on the High
Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages
three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order
under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is
neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible
rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with
procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly
arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from
express provisions of law which are necessary for proper
discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by
law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the
section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent
powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or
criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision,
as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are
necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of
administration of justice on the principle "quando lex
aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res
ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person
anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist).
While exercising powers under the section, the court does
not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the
court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice,
the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse
of process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it
amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of
these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice"
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with a similar
factual matrix in the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State
of Maharashtra and another (supra), wherein speaking through Justice
Dr. D.Y. Chardrachud, the following was observed:
"21. ...It would suffice to note that the co-accused was
granted bail by the Sessions Judge Thane on 16 April
2018. We are called upon to decide only whether the
appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight
weeks. In evaluating this issue, we must have regard to the
nature of the allegations, the conduct of the appellant and
above all, the need to ensure that he does not pose a risk of
evading the prosecution. The details which have been
furnished to the Court by the appellant, indicate that he
has regularly travelled between the US and India on as
many as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has
maintained a close contact with India. The view of the
High Court that he has no contact with India is contrary to
the material on record. The lodging of an FIR should not in
the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the
appellant to the US for eight weeks to attend to the
business of revalidating his Green Card. The conditions
which a court imposes for the grant of bail - in this case
temporary bail - have to balance the public interest in the
enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the
accused. The human right to dignity and the protection of
constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by
the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to
the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper
course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial.
The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a
proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the
conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed by the
grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully
evaluated in each case.
xxx xxx xxx
24. Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as
the issue as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from
justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the US, we
find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant,
that there is no reason or justification to deny him the
permission which has been sought to travel to the US for
eight weeks. The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds
an Indian passport. While it is true that an FIR has been
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
lodged against the appellant, that, in our view, should not
in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he is
a resident since 1985, particularly when it has been drawn
to the attention of the High Court and this Court that
serious consequences would ensue in terms of the
invalidation of the Green Card if the appellant were not
permitted to travel. The record indicates the large amount
of litigation between the family of the appellant and the
complainant. Notwithstanding or perhaps because of this,
the appellant has frequently travelled between the US and
India even after the filing of the complaint and the FIR. We
accordingly are of the view that the application for
modification was incorrectly rejected by the High Court
and the appellant ought to have been allowed to travel to
the US for a period of eight weeks..."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave constitutional
status to the right of travelling abroad in the landmark judgment of Mrs.
Maneka Gandhi's case (supra), by holding that travelling being one of
the most fundamental manifestations of liberty was brought to the fore.
This principle was again reiterated in the judgement titled Satish
Chandra Verma v. Union of India and others, reported as 2019 (2)
SCT 741, wherein highlighting that the right to travel abroad is an
important basic human right, the following was observed:
"5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic
human right for it nourishes independent and self-
determining creative character of the individual, not only
by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending
the scope of his experience. The right also extends to
private life; marriage, family and friendship are
humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of
freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is
a genuine human right. (See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248).
In the said judgement, there is a reference to the
words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles [1958] 357 US
116 which are as follows:
"Freedom to go abroad has much social value and
represents the basic human right of great
significance."
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043448
11. In the present case, the petitioner is not likely to flee from
justice. He is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport. If he is not
allowed to travel, it would have a truly detrimental effect especially in
respect to earn his livelihood.
12. Keeping in view the aforementioned discussions and in the
interest of justice the present petition is disposed of and the impugned
order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) is modified to the extent that the
petitioner is granted permission to travel abroad i.e. Spain from
15.02.2025 to 25.08.2025 and the others conditions so imposed by the
learned trial Court shall remain intact.
13. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed
as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the
trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of
this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.04.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
