1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 23713-M of 2009. Date of Decision: 6.11.2009 *** Jagjit Singh .. Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is one of the accused booked in case FIR No. 70 dated 8.5.2007, registered under Sections 420, 494, 498-A, 465, 471 IPC, Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar, by respondent No.2. He was granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 28.5.2007 and was directed not to leave India without prior permission of the Court and also to surrender his passport with the learned trial Court. Consequently, he passport was made the part of the judicial file. Vide impugned order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, request of the petitioner for release of his passport to visit England to see his ailing wife has been dismissed. It is apt to mention here that when the investigation of the case was initial stage, similar request was made by him, which was declined by this Court vide order dated December 17,2007. After having submitted cancellation report in the matter twice, the investigating agency has now prepared the challan against the petitioner. The petitioner is once again seeking release of his passport enabling him to 2 visit abroad. It has been averred in the application that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from multiple diseases and the petitioner has not visited her since May 2007 when he came to India to meet his relatives and was arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to catena of judgments passed by various Courts in support of his submission. The prayer has been opposed on the ground that the plea on which permission has been sought is not genuine and co-accused are absconding and if the petitioner is granted permission to visit abroad, there are every chances of his not returning to India. It is apt to mention here that the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused when they were abroad and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the co-accused were initiated in their absence. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled that a liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Admittedly, after May 2007 he has not permitted to visit abroad where his family is residing. He too was arrested when he visited India to meet his relatives. The petitioner is maintaining properties in different regions of State of Punjab. The only apprehension of the prosecution that in case the sought permission is granted the petitioner will not return to India, can be removed by imposing strict conditions upon him. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and it is directed that the passport of the petitioner be returned to him on the following terms and conditions:- a. That the petitioner shall furnish personal bond with two sureties of equivalent amount subject to the satisfaction of the Court concerned; b. he will return to India within a period of two months from the commencement of his journey to abroad; c. he will deposit a sum of Rs.20 lacs in the shape of fixed 3 deposit with the undertaking that in case of breach of any condition of his part, the amount shall be paid to the daughter of the complainant namely Mandeep Kaur or to the complainant himself in case he is authorized to do so by his daughter, who is stated to be residing abroad; d. he will deposit the original papers of his properties in Punjab with the Court below with the undertaking that there shall be a lien of Government over all his properties and in case he failed to return to India within the stipulated period, the Government shall be at liberty to take over the charge of his properties. (ARVIND KUMAR) November 6, 2009 JUDGE Jiten